Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/23261
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRay, Richard S.-
dc.contributor.authorHornibrook, John-
dc.contributor.authorSkitmore, Martin-
dc.contributor.authorZarkada, Anna K.-
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-18T08:24:29Z-
dc.date.available2021-10-18T08:24:29Z-
dc.date.issued1999-
dc.identifier.citationConstruction Management and Economics, 1999, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 139-153en_US
dc.identifier.issn1466433X-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/23261-
dc.description.abstractThe main issues in the philosophical foundations of ethics and tendering ethics are outlined, and an introduction is provided to the Australian codes of tendering practice. A questionnaire survey is then described which sought to ascertain the extent to which ethical behaviour in tendering is supported and practiced in Australia. The results of the survey indicate that most companies support the use of codes of tendering; defend the right of withdrawal of tenders; disapprove of bid shopping, cover pricing and union involvement in the tendering process, and support the principals' right to know what is included in a tender as well as the self-regulation of the tendering codes. It is also shown that most companies have developed, and follow, idiosyncratic ethical guidelines that are independent of, and often contrary to, the nationally prescribed codes. The conclusions recommend a need for the development of a theoretical frame of reference that can be tested through a more detailed empirical approach to the development of future ethical prescriptions in the field. © 1999 E & FN Spon.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofConstruction Management and Economicsen_US
dc.rights© Taylor & Francisen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectEthicsen_US
dc.subjectTenderingen_US
dc.subjectCodesen_US
dc.subjectRestrictive practicesen_US
dc.titleEthics in tendering: A survey of Australian opinion and practiceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationQueensland University of Technologyen_US
dc.subject.categoryEconomics and Businessen_US
dc.journalsSubscriptionen_US
dc.countryAustraliaen_US
dc.subject.fieldSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/014461999371646en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-3242732568-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/3242732568-
dc.relation.issue2en_US
dc.relation.volume17en_US
cut.common.academicyear1998-1999en_US
dc.identifier.spage139en_US
dc.identifier.epage153en_US
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.journal.journalissn1466-433X-
crisitem.journal.publisherTaylor & Francis-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Communication and Marketing-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-9382-6412-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

65
checked on Mar 14, 2024

Page view(s)

261
Last Week
2
Last month
8
checked on Jul 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons