I. SUMMARY In a globalized world, the construction industry is proliferating. New megacities are being built where most of the country's people live. People have always had problems relating to nature, which has always gotten much attention. People have to accept the new values and set priorities and attitudes to help them find their place in different systems of interaction and selfdetermination. Accepted social values can be a fundamental basis for a decision in favor of social and humanitarian values as long as they do not conflict with professional values in learning and acting. Modern building is a complicated process involving people from many jobs. Nevertheless, city planners, builders, and managers make decisions about the most challenging and vital things. Builders are in charge of putting buildings and structures together, running them, evaluating them, and putting them back together again. It may seem like putting "Management" on this list of training is not necessary. However, the building cannot happen without coordinating people and other resources to complete organizational tasks or without management activities. In the relevant professional standards, the requirements for the qualifications of an employee performing a particular type of professional work are recorded. So, the standards were used to determine the actual training needs of the construction industry. The requirements were reviewed in the form of General cultural and professional competencies, the GEF VPO in the areas of "Urban development," "Construction," and "Management." The purpose of the research was to identify the level of understanding of environmental ethics students of the University of Civil Engineering studying in the areas of "Urban development,» "Construction," and "Management." The first stage of the research is the study of the GEF for the preparation of specialists in "Urban development," "Construction," and "Management". The choice of these three areas is not accidental. Students did two tasks that were based on sociological and psychological research. During the training sessions, the study was done. The people who took part were students in the fourth course. There were two groups of 45 people for "Urban Development," two groups of 47 people for "Construction," and two groups of 39 people for "Management." Students were instructed to write free-form for 10 minutes about environmental ethics and their future careers. The students were then asked to rank a list of criteria that would be used to pick construction and finishing materials. The first number should represent the criterion they consider to be the most important. The last criterion is the least significant. The list of criteria: Impact on health; Durability; Quality; The complexity of the operation; Country of origin; The complexity of the work; Price; Aesthetic appeal. The first phase's results show that students understand what environmental ethics is. The second question shows that people have different ideas about how environmental ethics and professional work are related. All the student planners who participated in the survey wrote that their jobs are directly related to environmental ethics. However, only 42% of the respondents responsible for the ecological building of the materials feel responsible. The majority (87%) think that direct environmental ethics and professional activities have nothing to do with each other. Even though 92% of the respondents who answered believed the idea, the students-managers stated ", "Not directly related." The obtained results are not unexpected. Fourth-year (bachelor) students feel like professionals and can utilize professional standards. So urban planners' first criterion was "aesthetic appeal," whereas constructors' was work complexity. It is common for building displays to include research. The consumer's main criteria are price/quality ratio and country of origin. Environmentally friendly materials are the third-fourth place. Future managers used the same criteria. Choosing for myself was very difficult for students. They worked 30 to 40 minutes. Regardless of the direction of preparation, the student's choice of young men lies in the plane of three criteria: (1) aesthetic appeal, (2) country of origin, and (3) the complexity of the operation. The selection of students-girls also lay in three areas: (1) aesthetic appeal, (2) environmental (impact on health), and (3) country of origin. Column "Price" left students without attention because they believed their money would be enough to build a house for themselves. The first place students-builders and student–managers came in criterion "Price," "Complexity," and "Country of origin." Student planners also had the first place left, with the criterion "Price" in second place, came to the criterion "Sustainability" and "Aesthetic appeal" in third place. Thus, the study showed the following. The adoption of environmental ethics principles among the University of Civil Engineering students is at the very first stage of awareness. However, as a professional and personal, when the person acts according to these principles and takes responsibility, not formed. Construction is a collectively organized activity with collective responsibility. In such situations, the zone of irresponsibility arises, unfortunately, and inevitably. Indeed, it is in the construction and the training of construction personnel research. However, environmental ethics for builders must become a system of principles that defines the rules of conduct and professional and personal responsibility. This should be of professional competence and not only cultural. II. POINTS LEARNED FROM THE PAPER In this paper, researchers found out the level of understanding of students in various areas such as Urban Development, Construction, and Management in Moskow Civil Engineering University by conducting different phases of surveys. The first phase let the students describe their future careers and its relation to environmental ethics. We have learned that in this phase, respondents actually understand what environmental ethics is and how it is related to their future careers. The next phase is, there is a list of criteria present in the survey where students have to rank their most and least important criterion for picking construction and finishing materials. Based from this, we have learned that only 42% of the respondents in the ecological building of materials are responsible. Also, we have learned that 87% or the majority believed that environmental ethics and professional activities are not connected or related. In the ranking of criteria, Urban Development students chose “aesthetic appeals” as their most important criterion, for the Construction students it is “complexity of the work”, and for the Management students it is the “price”. We have realized that students from various areas have different perspectives when it comes to picking the most and least important criterion of construction and finishing materials. The key concept in this paper is that environmental ethics for builders must become a system of principles that defines the rules of conduct and professional and personal responsibility. III. ISSUES The issue that our group noticed is how environmental ethics not being discussed thoroughly and clearly, since it is a significant concept in the paper, which greatly affect the overall purpose of the paper. Another is that how complex the topic is, there are three aspects involved in relating to environmental ethics which are Social, Professional and Personal Value. IV. POINTS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND COMMENTS The research paper is well structured, the ideas are clear, and the references are chosen nicely. However, some parts of the paper still need improvement. There are a lot of grammatical errors that have been present in the paper. This could have been avoided if they had proofread it carefully. Also, some parts of the paper are not present in the study. Recommendations are not present, which could help future researchers to improve the study. Survey questions should be attached in the appendices for the reference of future researchers. The scope and the significance are already present in the paper; it can still be improved by separating them and not combining the two in a single section. The paper has some shortcomings in regard to some data analyses and text, and the dataset has not been utilized to its full extent. The data are insufficient to make conclusions about the study.
