Identification of shareholder ethics and responsibilities in online reverse auctions for construction projects
Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (2):283-288 (2004)
| Abstract | The increasing number of companies providing internet services and auction tools helped popularize the online reverse auction trend for purchasing commodities and services in the last decade. As a result, a number of owners, both public and private, accepted the online reverse auctions as the bidding technique for their construction projects. Owners, while trying to minimize their costs for construction projects, are also required to address their ethical responsibilities to the shareholders. In the case of online reverse auctions for construction projects, the ethical issues involved in the bidding technique directly reflects on the owner’s ethical and social responsibilities to their shareholders. The goal of this paper is to identify the shareholder ethics and responsibilities in online reverse auctions for construction projects by analyzing the ethical issues for the parties involved in the process. The identification of the ethical issues and responsibilities requires clear definition and understanding of professional ethics and the roles of the involved parties. In this paper, first, the concept of professional ethics and social responsibility is described in a general form. To illustrate the ethical issues and responsibilities, a sample case of bidding for a construction project using online reverse auction techniques is presented in which the shareholders were actively involved in questioning the ethical issues. The issues involved in the bidding process and their reflection on the shareholder responsibilities are described and analyzed for each stage of the process. A brief discussion of the overall process is also included to address the general ethical issues involved in online reverse auctions. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMark Deuze & Daphna Yeshua (2001). Online Journalists Face New Ethical Dilemmas: Lessons From the Netherlands. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16 (4):273 – 292.
Halil Shevket Neap & Seran Aysal (2004). Owner's Factor in Value-Based Project Management in Construction. Journal of Business Ethics 50 (1):97-103.
Michael Jay Polonsky (1998). Incorporating Ethics Into Business Students' Research Projects: A Process Approach. Journal of Business Ethics 17 (11):1227-1241.
Robert McGinn (2010). Ethical Responsibilities of Nanotechnology Researchers: A Short Guide. Nanoethics 4 (1):1-12.
Penny J. Gilmer & Michael DuBois (2002). Teaching Social Responsibility: The Manhattan Project. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2).
Rafael Capurro & Christoph Pingel (2002). Ethical Issues of Online Communication Research. Ethics and Information Technology 4 (3):189-194.
Patricia H. Werhane (1988). Two Ethical Issues in Mergers and Acquisitions. Journal of Business Ethics 7 (1-2):41 - 45.
Alexei M. Marcoux (2003). Snipers, Stalkers, and Nibblers: Online Auction Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 46 (2):163 - 173.
Alex Nikitkov & Darlene Bay (2008). Online Auction Fraud: Ethical Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 79 (3):235 - 244.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads4 ( #180,507 of 556,896 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
