Executive Summary
This essay explains the increasing need for ethical construction sites in Australia. The construction industry, traditionally, has been bombarded with ethical allegations. In Australia, only a few policies have been put in place to address construction ethical standards. The commonest form of unethical misconduct in the Australian construction industries is cover valuing, bid cutting, inadequate certification, unfair treatment of contractors, and unlawful tendering process among other unethical issues. The findings from one Australian company reveal some of the most common unethical situations they have ever found themselves in. In this particular essay, a construction company finds itself in a dilemma after it comes to the realization that the construction site harbors an underground natural spring beneath. As a call of action, the contractors inform the regulatory body in an attempt to follow the due procedure and stick to the regulations. However, this means that the contractors had to come up with an updated version.
Introduction
The construction sector is known for its fraudulent under-table dealings hence offering a conducive platform for unethical practices. This industrial sector attracts heavy capital investments thus giving its stakeholders numerous chances to indulge in unfair business practices. Unethical activities can occur at various phases of the construction project- from designing, planning, and implementation to the qualification phase of the entire project. Such unethical actions lead to unsuitable projects, overpriced properties, or even overdue projects. Additionally, unethical actions have a long-lasting impact on construction and manufacturing organizations such as misused tender prices, tendering indecision, and inflated prices hence the need to correct these situations before they can worsen or have damaging impacts on the real estate industry (Sohail, and Cavill, 2008, p729). As a matter of urgency, the Australian government is taking bold steps in an attempt to approach to reduce unethical procedures within its borders. The reforms included the formation of construction agencies and entities followed by the enactment of anti-bribery regulations. Similarly, the construction organizations have launched their own supervision body to ensure that a third body can hold them accountable in case they go against the rule of law. The codes of conduct administering integrity and actionable regulations had to respect the society and the construction companies to harmonize efforts of ensuring that ethical conducts are the norm of the day. Raising awareness on proper mannerisms helped to horn the skills of the people and this increased quality of the work output and ensured that the safety and health of residents are protected from construction impacts.
Dilemma Description
One of the most reputable companies in Australia won a tender to work on a scientific laboratory on the west wing of a brewery organization. All the things were set in place as the company prepared to deploy its workforce and working pieces of machinery. Senior managers from the construction firm confirm everything with the brewery’s supervisor. The construction company’s senior management later realized the construction site was on top of an underground spring (Lu, Huang, and Li, 2011, p101). Based on Australian regulations, the natural watershed is to be spared from construction. However, the brewery's supervisors had not raised any red flags. This realization forced the construction company to call the regulatory body in charge of certifying construction sites. The body failed to give them a go ahead and requested for a change in the construction site. It is vital to note that this came after the construction company had already taken into account the building materials and compliance permits. In order to solve this issue, the construction company called in the Brewery Company's chairman. The chairman later called in Australia's regulatory board. The next day, the three parties set up a meeting so that they could come up with a solution to the emerging dilemma. During the meeting, the construction company was instructed to come up with a solid engineering blueprint that would spare the underground. Moreover, the Australian regulatory board insisted on seeing the engineering blueprint before the construction company proceeded with the building process. As a way of adhering to other policies and ethical standards, the Brewing Company incurred an extra cost due to the alterations suggested by the chief engineer. After a two week period had elapsed, the construction company sent its updated engineering blueprint to the Brewery Company and the regulatory board. The regulatory board was satisfied with the new plan. However, the Brewery firm raised complaints because it would cost them an arm and leg to preserve the underground spring. Consequently, the Brewery Company called in the chief engineer and tried to bride them so that they would not follow the updated plans as stipulated by the regulatory board. To make matters worse, the Brewery Company wanted the constructors to divert the natural course of the spring (Walker, and Rowlinson, 2007, 220). Diverting the natural course of the spring would affect the neighboring town and pollute peaceful neighborhoods. Thus, the construction company had only two choices- accept to build the science laboratory according to the regulatory board's specifications or deviate from the unethical plan. One of the most key aspects of the construction project was putting up a building that would adhere to conservation norms and at the same time avoid disruption of the neighboring natural ecosystem. With time, the building would be inspected if it was built according to the stipulated rules. Hence, the implementer of the project was afraid that if they go against the stipulations of the law, the government might catch up with them later and that they would have to pay a heavy price for their disobedience. On the other hand, the Brewery Company promised to award the construction company another tender if only they could bend the rules for them in this particular project. The conflict of interest is always brought up in such cases because the owners of a project are willing to go against the stipulations of the law and the tailored agreements which are supposed to hold them accountable for doing the right thing.
Analysis and Evaluation
The construction company met a predicament after settling the terms of the contract. This means that they were not aware of the underlying issue. The first ethical issue in this situation is the failure to evaluate the construction site. Both sides of the company failed to carry out an environmental impact assessment study of the area. The first step in any construction process is conducting an environmental impact assessment in order to unveil the impact the construction project will have on the natural environment (Sonenshein, 2007, p1022). Most of the time both stakeholders assume that putting up a building is commended as long as according to the law. However, all the documented and undocumented ethical issues must always be observed. Simply put, both parties were to blame for the failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment. The second ethical issue was the failure to change the location. Changing the location was the best option. Nevertheless, the regulatory board and the other stakeholders ignored this important fact. Most of the time, the underground water body feeds a larger water body. Building on top of this underground would have far-reaching consequences in the long run. Therefore the best solution was changing the location and completely avoiding tampering with the waterbody. Underground water bodies are to remain untampered due to the catchment area. In terms of solutions, the Brewery Company tried to bribe the construction company. Bribery is one of the most unethical practices that one can engage in. it impedes solving the case and put pressure on the implementers of the project. This case was simple but the Brewery Company failed to carry out its mandate professionally and acceptably. The only thing one can hope is that the construction company did the project based on the permitted blueprint. In this context, the construction company would take the blame in case. It was wrong for the Brewery Company to go against the stipulated regulations set by the regulatory board. There is only one objective that is giving preserving the underground spring. The preservations of these spring can only be done according to the updated blueprint which is considered ways of constructing without interfering with it.
Conclusion
The construction sector plays a crucial role in the economic growth of any country. For the sake of retrieving optimum advantages from this industry and make sure that its functionalities run smoothly, acceptable ethical practices should be given an optimal priority. In spite of the creativeness and advancement in technology in the construction industry, unethical practices still find a place in the construction sector. This has derailed its growth in more than one aspect. In this particular case study, a company failed to carry out an environmental impact assessment test t hence missed out on underground spring. The company had to design the building in a manner that would preserve the underground spring.
Recommendation
Regulatory boards should define water catchment areas (Somachandra, and Sylva, 2018, p102). This will make it easier for conservation purposes and it will not create human conflict. Instead of diverting or creating space for constructions, the best thing is isolating water catchment areas for conservation purposes.
References
Lu, W., Huang, G.Q. and Li, H., 2011. Scenarios for applying RFID technology in construction project management. Automation in construction, 20(2), pp.101-106.
Sohail, M. and Cavill, S., 2008. Accountability to prevent corruption in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and management, 134(9), pp.729-738.
Somachandra, V. and Sylva, K., 2018. “Ethical management practice” as a csr tool to ensure the corporate sustainability of construction industry: a conceptual review.
Sonenshein, S., 2007. The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), pp.1022-1040.
Walker, D. and Rowlinson, S., 2007. Procurement systems: a cross-industry project management perspective. Routledge.
