engineering in society - engr · engineering in society denard lynch, ... engineers as responsible...

Supplementary Class Notes for

GE 449.3 Engineering in Society

Denard Lynch, P.Eng. Assistant Professor – Electrical & Computer Engineering

University of Saskatchewan 2001 - 2009

1. Ethics, Professionalism and Professional Duty ................................................................................. 5

1.1. What does “Professional” mean? ................................................................................................... 5 1.2. Ethics and Morality ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.3. Resolving Moral Dilemmas............................................................................................................ 7

1.3.1. Inquiries .................................................................................................................................. 7 1.3.2. Line Drawing .......................................................................................................................... 7 1.3.3. Flowcharts............................................................................................................................... 7 1.3.4. Example .................................................................................................................................. 8

2. Psychology of Moral Development: ................................................................................................. 10 3. Ethical and Moral Theories .............................................................................................................. 12

3.1. Utilitarianism:............................................................................................................................... 12 3.2. Duty Ethics ................................................................................................................................... 13 3.3. Rights Ethics................................................................................................................................. 14 3.4. Virtue Ethics................................................................................................................................. 14 3.5. Other Ethical views, terms ........................................................................................................... 15 3.6. Personal versus Corporate Morals................................................................................................ 16

4. Laws, Codes and Behaviour.............................................................................................................. 17 4.1. Some notes on "Laws": ................................................................................................................ 18 4.2. Codes of Ethics:............................................................................................................................ 19

5. Engineering as Managing the Unknown.......................................................................................... 21 5.1.1. Engineers as Responsible Experimenters: ............................................................................ 21

6. Risk, Risk - Benefit, and Safety ........................................................................................................ 22 6.1.1. Uncertainties in Design......................................................................................................... 22 6.1.2. Safety and Cost Trade-offs ................................................................................................... 22 6.1.3. Testing to Enhance Safety Knowledge ................................................................................. 24 6.1.4. Failure Analysis Techniques................................................................................................. 24 6.1.5. Designing for Safety ............................................................................................................. 25 6.1.6. Some Cautions with Risk - Benefit Analysis........................................................................ 25

6.2. Assessment and Acceptance of Risk ............................................................................................ 26 6.3. Effect of Information.................................................................................................................... 28 6.4. Faulty Assumptions about Safety................................................................................................. 28 6.5. Liability ........................................................................................................................................ 29 6.6. Lessons from Three Mile Island and “Safe Exit”......................................................................... 29 6.7. Lesson for Engineers: ................................................................................................................... 30

7. Duties and Responsibilities of Engineers ......................................................................................... 32 7.1. Confidentiality.............................................................................................................................. 32 7.2. Conflicts of Interest ...................................................................................................................... 33 7.3. Loyalty.......................................................................................................................................... 34 7.4. Authority ...................................................................................................................................... 35 7.5. Engineers and Collective Bargaining ........................................................................................... 36 7.6. Occupational crimes ..................................................................................................................... 37

7.6.1. Industrial espionage .............................................................................................................. 37 7.6.2. Price fixing............................................................................................................................ 37 7.6.3. Safety Violations................................................................................................................... 37

7.7. Environmental Responsibilities.................................................................................................... 38 8. Rights of Engineers............................................................................................................................ 39

8.1.1. A Note on Specificity of Rights, and Abstraction ................................................................ 40 8.2. Whistle Blowing........................................................................................................................... 41

8.2.1. Protecting Whistle Blowers: ................................................................................................. 42 8.3. Employee Rights and Human Rights ........................................................................................... 43

8.3.1. Privacy and Drug Testing ..................................................................................................... 44 8.3.2. Non-Discrimination .............................................................................................................. 45 8.3.3. Sexual Harassment................................................................................................................ 46

9. International Operation & Global Issues ........................................................................................ 47 9.1. Cultural Concerns......................................................................................................................... 47 9.2. International Operations ............................................................................................................... 49 9.3. Culture-Transcending Norms ....................................................................................................... 50 9.4. Appropriate Technology Transfer ................................................................................................ 53

10. Engineers and Sustainability: Environmental Ethics ................................................................... 54 10.1. Terms and Definitions ................................................................................................................ 54

10.1.1. Growth versus Development............................................................................................... 54 10.1.2. Sustainable Development.................................................................................................... 54 10.1.3. The Environment ................................................................................................................ 55

10.2. Anthropocentricity and Western Ethics ..................................................................................... 56 10.2.1. Approaches to the Environment.......................................................................................... 56 10.2.2. Ethical Views and the Environment ................................................................................... 56

10.3. Technology’s Role in Sustainability .......................................................................................... 57 10.3.1. End-of-Pipe Solutions versus Clean Technologies............................................................. 57 10.3.2. A Guide for Cleanliness...................................................................................................... 58

10.3.3. Balancing the Ecological Budget........................................................................................ 58 10.4. Approaches to Ecological Management..................................................................................... 59

10.4.1. Crisis Oriented Management .............................................................................................. 59 10.4.2. Cost-Oriented Environmental Management ....................................................................... 59 10.4.3. Enlightened Environmental Management........................................................................... 59 10.4.4. Managing for Sustainability................................................................................................ 59

10.5. The Engineer’s Role ................................................................................................................... 60 10.5.1. The Engineering Profession and Ecological Responsibility ............................................... 60 10.5.2. Codes of Ethics – Two Proposals ....................................................................................... 62 10.5.3. Laws and Regulations ......................................................................................................... 63 10.5.4. Design Approaches ............................................................................................................. 64

11. Works Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 66

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

1. Ethics, Professionalism and Professional Duty

1.1. What does “Professional” mean? Professional work / decisions requires special expertise. This follows from typical accepted definitions of “learned professional”. The author offers the following as a working definition: "An occupation, the execution of which requires specialized education, knowledge or training such that persons without such specialized preparation are not practically able to practice in this capacity, nor adequately able to assess such performance" (Lynch). Fleddermann examines the question “What is a Profession?” and describes several attributes including “Work that requires sophisticated skills, the use of judgment and the exercise of discretion... is not routine...” (16). Martin & Schinzinger consider a “persuasive” definition and conclude that professional engineers must obtain a high level of education and demonstrate superior performance as well as accept their professional moral obligations (29).

The "public" (those without professional expertise) must therefore trust professionals and their judgment. This trust is based on several factors:

- honesty / motivation - reliability / past performance

- competence / ability The public makes an assessment of trustworthiness based on information from a variety of sources that contribute to their experience and thus their knowledge. This information comes from:

- the media (all forms)

- other's experiences - personal experiences

All of this input results in the public's perceptions / conclusions about professional(s). (Refer to "trust_chart" below for a graphical representation of the factors versus the elements of trust)

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

Trust Chart (model of how impressions are formed about sub-groups of society; e.g. professionals)

Experiences >> >> Knowledge

Media >>

Others' >>

experiences

Personal >>

experiences

Perceptions / conclusions

Elements of Trust:

fictional, factual

books, journals stories, reports

TV, documentaries movies, news?

hearsay

cultural beliefs

personal one-on-one experiences

impressions / opinions

(generalizations)

honesty / motivation

reliability / past performance

competence / ability

Professional's actions and behaviours, individually and collectively, contribute significantly to the public's "experience". This relationship between actions / behaviour >> public's experience >> perceptions / conclusions >> trust... implies a duty on behalf of the professional to act according to a certain "standard" of moral behaviour.

1.2. Ethics and Morality It is because of this duty and desire to provide a positive image and understand our own professional obligations that we want to study ethics and morality and their relationship to ‘acceptable’ behavior. Our aim is to “increase the ability of concerned engineers, managers, citizens, and others to responsibly confront moral issues raised by technological activity.” (Martin & Schinzinger, 15) Further, we want to improve our ability to “think critically and independently about moral issues...” and to “sensitize you to important ethical issues before you confront them.” (Fleddermann, 3). Ethic or ethics can be defined simply as “The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or members of a profession” (Dictionary.com). Morals are "concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character" (Dictionary.com). Engineering ethics specifically, can be defined as “...the rules and standards governing the conduct of engineers in their role as professional.” (Fleddermann, 2). Martin & Schinzinger offer a more elaborate definition: “1) the study of the moral issues and decisions confronting individuals and

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

organizations engaged in engineering, and 2) the study of related questions about the moral ideals, policies, and relationships of people and corporations involved in technological activity.” (2)

1.3. Resolving Moral Dilemmas Martin & Schinzinger describe a moral or ethical dilemma as: "situations in which two or more moral obligations, duties, rights, goods, or ideals come into conflict with one another, and it appears that not all of them can be fully respected." (15)

Moral dilemmas can be resolved through a process that involves: (Martin & Schinzinger, p16): - identification: recognizing that a ethical conflict exists, identify conflicting rights,

obligations, duties, or ideals involved - analysis: gathering available facts, ranking the moral considerations, consider alternatives,

consult with others - action: arrive as an appropriate plan of action or decision.

More specific techniques are available to help with the resolution of dilemmas including: - inquiries (including factual, conceptual, moral) (Fleddermann, p46)

- line drawing (Fleddermann, p48) - flowcharting (Fleddermann, p51)

1.3.1. Inquiries “Inquiries” can help resolve a dilemma by providing or clarifying information and concepts. Factual inquiries seek to answer questions like “What actually happened, and when?”, “How much is that gift actually worth?”, “What is the actual limit for that chemical in drinking water under current regulations?”. While this is typically factual information, there are cases where even “facts” are affected by perceptions and beliefs. Conceptual inquiries try to clarify questions such as: “Is changing a CD enough of a distraction to cause impairment?”, “Was that really a bribe or just a gift? (i.e. Where is the line?)”, “What level of chemical constitutes pollution?”. Finally, moral (or normative (Martin & Schinzinger)) inquiries attempt to establish agreement on issues like: whether impaired driving is permissible, if accepting gifts is acceptable business practice, and whether it is wrong to pollute. While some cases may appear fairly straight forward, others can turn out to be very complex.

1.3.2. Line Drawing Line drawing is often a useful tool to try to define the “black” and “white” sides of a “grey” issue. It involves defining a number of different alternative courses of action or behaviours and then putting them in order on a line scale between “obviously unacceptable” and “ definitely acceptable”. The final step is deciding where on this scale one should draw the “acceptable” line in the situation. given.

1.3.3. Flowcharts Flowcharting is a technique familiar to most engineering disciplines, and can be useful to help illustrate or clarify the possible consequences of a number of different choices or optional courses of

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

action.

In many cases, a combination of all three (and possible other techniques) may be required to help resolve an ethical or moral dilemma. A simple examples may help illustrate how these tools might be applied in a given situation.

1.3.4. Example Scenario: A student is faced with a major assignment for his GE 449 class in which he is asked to research and write an original report on how a technology or engineering accomplishment has influenced the development of civilization. A classmate tells him that his older brother did just such an assignment for Prof. Lynch’s class a number of years ago, and says he is sure he could get a copy of it. While it would undoubtedly save a lot of precious time, the student is concerned about how, or even if, he could use this previous work to save him some effort. His design project is behind schedule and he can’t afford to miss the final deadline without jeopardizing his planned graduation in the spring. How can he decide what course of action is morally acceptable? We might start by recognizing that the requirement to be “original” might create a dilemma for us if we consider using a previous report in any way. It may also be clear already that we could do a “factual inquiry” to try to determine exactly what “original report” means. (While this may seem to be a conceptual issue in some respects, i.e. “What does ‘original’ mean?”, in this context it seems simply a matter of finding out exactly what your professor intended.) This inquiry might start with your professor who, we will assume, tells you that it means original research and report, but that the topic need not be original or unique. Sensing that you have a reason for asking this question, your professor also reminds you that the University has very strict rules about plagiarism. The next step could be to use a simple flow chart to try to organize your options and help visualize the possible results.

Need original report for GE 449

Ask for copy of Report

Start report from scratch

Doesoriginal

report mean orig topic?

Willusing report

be plagiarism?

Is itacceptable to

plagarize?No

NoNo

Yes

YesYes

Start

We see that through a simple factual inquiry we have already answered the first question and move on to “Will using the report be plagiarism?”.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

Answering this question is more difficult, as it involves resolving the issue of “What constitutes plagiarism?”. This may again require determining some “facts” like the University’s policy on plagiarism, but may also involve some conceptual issues that are not as easy to resolve. A little research at the University of Saskatchewan Academic Honesty site shows suggestions like “Use your own work to complete assignments and exams” and “Cite the source when quoting or paraphrasing someone else’s work” (What is Academic Honesty?). It also reminds you of the penalties for plagiarism that “… range between grades of zero to expulsion, depending on the college and the seriousness of the offence” (What Happens if…). It still leaves some unanswered questions like “Is it my own work if I use the previous report as a source of possible areas to research, but then research them on my own?”. To resolve this conceptual issue, it may be helpful to use the line drawing method.

To use the Line drawing method, we start by defining the positive and negative extremes of possible actions:

1. positive extreme: do not look at the previous report at all 2. negative extreme: copy the previous report, put your name on it and hand it in as your own.

Of course there are a variety of options between these two extremes, and we attempt to describe them:

3. use the same topic, but re-do all the research 4. use the same topic and use the previous report as a cited reference

5. use the same general ideas from the previous reports, but don’t bother citing 6. use the same topic and cited references as the previous report without credit

7. read the report only to get an idea of the format and detail required 8. use the same topic and cited references as the previous report but acknowledge

The next step involves laying out these options on a “line” in increasing order of acceptability. One possible ranking is shown below:

2 16 8 5 4 3 7

positiveextreme

negativeextreme

Finally, we make a decision as to where on this line will be minimally acceptable (perhaps around 4). We may determine this with the help of colleagues or even our Professor. We can then answer the question in the second decision box in our flowchart based on our intended use of the report (or, more likely, this will help determine an acceptable use for the previous report). The final decision box: “Is it acceptable to plagiarize?” is a moral issue and often anticlimactic at this point, because, as Fleddermann points out, after resolving the other issues “… it is clear what the resolution should be.” (47).

In many cases, any one or a combination of techniques may be helpful in resolving ethical and moral dilemmas. As with other tools, practice will improve ones proficiency.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

2. Psychology of Moral Development: Most theories about moral development describe a series of steps that the individual or society will progress through on the way to their final moral "level" (i.e. as mature adults). Theories which are discussed by Martin & Schinzinger (18) describe the progressive "levels" of moral development as:

- Pre-conventional

- Conventional - Post-conventional

Note: There is no assumption that any individual, or society, will progress through all stages. In fact, they admit that most people plateau at the conventional level (18).

The two theories discussed by Martin & Schinzinger, as proposed by Lawrence Kohlberg (18) and Carol Gilligan (19), are compared in the following table: Level Kohlberg

(ethics of rules and rights)

Gilligan

(ethics of care)

pre-conventional - self-serving, selfish

- "what's good for me"

- avoid punishment

-"Bronze Rule*"

(characteristic of small children)

basically the same as Kohlberg's

conventional - do as others do

- accept norms of group, society

- consider / please others, loyalty

- consider expectations of social unit

- "Silver Rule*"

(most people plateau here)

- don't hurt others

- sacrifice self-interest for sake of others

post-conventional - follow a set of principles concerning rights and the general good

- not tied to self-interests, social convention

- "moral autonomy"; independent thought.

-"Golden Rule*"

(only a few reach this level)

- reasoned balance between caring for others and one's self-interest

- maintain relationships based on mutual caring

- context oriented reasoning.

*the “metal rules” as defined by Denard Lynch:

bronze rule: ‘don’t do to others if you’ll get caught or punished’ silver rule: ‘don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

golden rule: ‘do for others what you’d like done for you [or the rest of humanity]’

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

3. Ethical and Moral Theories We assume that all mature adults (including engineering students, their teachers, and practicing engineers) have reached a level of moral development that, as a minimum, includes a sincere concern for others, and a willingness, where they conflict, to forego self interests for the common good. (??) Ethical theories are “not moral algorithms that can be mechanically applied to remove perplexity”. They can be used to help form a more complete understanding in ethical conflict situations. In particular, they help consider or understand alternative points of view. (Martin & Schinzinger, 40)

3.1. Utilitarianism: - based on maximizing "goodness" (i.e. most good for the most people).

Act Utilitarianism Proponent: John Mill: an act is right if it is likely to produce the most good for the most people

- follows rules of thumb (based on past human experience about what will usually maximize utility e.g. don't lie, don’t steal, don't kill…), but can and should be broken if doing so will produce more good in a given situation; i.e. not hung up on strict adherence to rules (Martin & Schinzinger, 53)

"Goodness": Happiness is the only intrinsic good; all others are instrumental. (Martin & Schinzinger, 53) (E.g. a trip to the dentist is an instrumental good in that it leads to eventual happiness by avoiding the pain of a toothache.)

Also, Mill's view is that happiness comes from a variety of pleasures (Martin & Schinzinger, 54) - there is a hierarchy of pleasures, where the higher order is preferred to the lower

- Mill's test : majority who try both favour higher order Rule Utilitarianism Proponent: Richard Brandt: …ought always to act on those rules that, if

generally followed, would produce the most good for the most people. (Martin & Schinzinger, 54)

- acts are "right" when they follow these rules. e.g. don't take bribes, keep promises etc. - rules considered in sets called "moral codes".

- the optimal code is the one that maximizes good for the most people - may be society wide or applicable to a sub-group (e.g. like professionals)

Brandt also believed we are justified in pursuing "rational desires", i.e. things that make us happy but won't harm ourselves or others. (Martin & Schinzinger, 55)

Act vs Rule Utilitarianism: - more tendency for societies to follow "Rules", as "Act" leaves too many loop holes

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

and too much room for individual interpretation and conflicts.

- in both cases, defining or agreeing on what is "good" is still a problem. Engineering Analysis and Utilitarianism:

Much engineering analysis is generally predicated on a utilitarian principle. (Fleddermann, 35) A cost – benefit analysis, for example, tries to determine how to get the most benefit for the least cost or, in effect, maximizing goodness. A risk – benefit analysis also attempts to determine a plan that would maximize “Goodness” while minimizing the negative effects or the number of people who are negatively affected. Some questions to ponder…

i) Is it always "the most good for the most people" to keep everyone alive? Were cannibals or other cultures that sacrificed members in order to survive utilitarians?

ii) Which brand of utilitarianism may have led to the phrase "the end justifies the means"?

Measuring "goodness" is always difficult. Economists sometimes reduce it to "buying habits". (E.g. buying habits express peoples preferences; right actions will “produce the greatest satisfaction of the preferences of the people affected” (Martin & Schinzinger, 55), thus goodness is evidenced by a successful market.)

Hypothesis to consider (Lynch)… Moral codes are tied to economic reality. The level of moral development in a civilization is demonstrated in the degree to which they afford the same protection or support to all entities with which they share an existence as they do to any other entity. This "protection" can apply to less capable humans, other animals or even inanimate objects like buildings. Consider ancient cultures where the lame, sick, old… were often abandoned (or even put to death) because their society couldn't afford to "carry" them. As these cultures became more affluent, there were able to change this practice. Given the comment on economics given above, perhaps this could be re-written as "The level of economic development…."!

3.2. Duty Ethics Duty Ethics: Proponent: Immanuel Kant - right actions are dictated by a list of duties (be fair, be

honest, be kind etc.) (Martin & Schinzinger, 55)

- includes duties to others and ourselves Characteristics of these duties (all duties must posses these):

- "respect for persons" - (because they have inherent worth as humans, and capacity for autonomy and goodwill)

- "universal principle" - universalizable - we'd be willing to have everyone follow these - "unqualified command" - no qualifications required or implied. It is a categorical

imperative (e.g. don't steal") versus a hypothetical imperative (e.g. ‘eat healthier’ which is based on a hypothesis: eating healthier will improve your life).

Problem: - doesn't allow any flexibility for exceptions when duties conflict. E.g. In a kidnapping

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

situation, the duty to "not lie" may conflict with the duty to "protect innocent life". In fact, most duties are “prima facie” duties; they are duties that can have exceptions under certain circumstances. (Martin & Schinzinger, 57)

Duty Ethics: Proponent: John Rawls - the duties we should follow are what rational people would agree to in a hypothetical contracting situation. (Martin & Schinzinger, 57) A "rational person":

- has no self interest (bias)

- has knowledge about human psychology, society, science etc. - will promote their long term interests

- will seek agreement with others (about principles all will voluntarily follow) Pawls believed that people would adhere to the following two principles:

1) each person is entitled to the maximum freedom compatible with an equal amount for others,

2) differences in societal power or economic benefits are only justified if it benefits everyone in society.

3.3. Rights Ethics Rights Ethics: duties arise because people have rights

Liberty rights: Proponent: John Locke - based primarily on the view that people’s individual rights were paramount, and that other people had a duty to respect those rights. (Fleddermann, 36)

believed people had the right to …life, liberty, and the property generated by one's labour. (Martin & Schinzinger, 58)

liberty rights or negative rights - imposed duties on others to not interfere with other's lives (58)

"Libertarian ideology" - minimize government, taxes, welfare. (59)

Liberty and welfare rights: Proponent: Abraham Irving Melden - based on broader human rights and a sense of community (Martin & Schinzinger, 59)

moral “rights" meant capacity to show concern for others allows for welfare rights - everyone has right to community support for basic

needs some rights arise from others actions, e.g. one has a right to have a promise

kept because another person made it.

3.4. Virtue Ethics Virtue Ethics: oldest theory, started with Aristotle (Martin & Schinzinger, 41)

- assumes ethical behaviour follows from characteristics / traits that people acquire.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

- people will do the right thing because they have developed virtuous habits

- believed there was a "golden mean" for most behaviour that was a virtuous middle ground between extremes (e.g. courage is a mean between cowardice and foolhardiness)

- considered wisdom and good judgment the most important virtues.

- virtues were quite community oriented Alasdair MacIntyre: was a virtue ethicist that added the concept of internal and external goods

resulting from a "practice". (Martin & Schinzinger, 42) E.g. the internal good of teaching - "education, knowledge"; the internal good of engineering might be - "application of science for the benefit of society".

- concept especially applicable to professions

considered "professional responsibility" a virtue that had four components: - self direction - self understanding, good moral judgment, moral autonomy,

commitment, self discipline, integrity (42) - public spirited - focused on good of others, clients. Non-maleficence as a

minimum, strive for beneficence. (42) - team work - with all other groups, individuals (43)

- proficiency – competence (43)

3.5. Other Ethical views, terms Ethical Egoism (Hobbes, Rand): (Martin & Schinzinger, 62) "it's all about me"

- proposes that we are all driven by pursuit of our own long term interests

Ethical Pluralism: there are many to chose from, one will never fit all (Martin & Schinzinger, 63) - also considers the effect of customs and cultures

Ethical Relativism: it's OK if it's legal or customary (Martin & Schinzinger, 64) - attempts to reduce moral values to that reflected in laws and local customs (which

may vary significantly over time and through cultures) - doesn’t allow for a higher level of ethical behaviour beyond the minimum dictated by

law or convention (i.e. what you can get away with before being punished or at least admonished)

Divine Command Ethics: right actions are commanded by God; wrong actions are forbidden by God (Martin & Schinzinger, 66)

- religion and ethics are very closely related for many - C. J. Ducasse believed: main social function of religion is to promote right action.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

3.6. Personal versus Corporate Morals Fleddermann discusses the issue of whether or not organizations can be moral agents (38). A more relevant question for an employee engineer may be how to resolve differences between organizational and personal morals. Organizations will, over time, exhibit morals they acquire from the members of the organization. Of course, the contributing weight of various individuals will vary depending on their personal characteristics, their tenure and their position in the organization (e.g. an assertive individual who founds an organization will undoubtedly have a greater influence on its morals than a shy individual who just joined the organization).

Given that an organization may have a set of morals, and may even have them reflected in written policies and procedures, the question becomes whether one should follow their own or the organization’s morals. In cases were there is clearly a “level” difference, follow the higher standard. In cases where the differences are arguably based primarily on personal opinion, the dilemma resolution techniques discussed elsewhere may be of some assistance in choosing a course of action. Remember also, that as a professional you have the right of conscientious refusal, or the right to refuse to participate or condone what you feel is unethical activity. Seeking out a “morally compatible” organization in the first place when searching for a position will help avoid such conflicts.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

4. Laws, Codes and Behaviour Behaviour Continuum (Relationship of Laws and Codes to standards of ethical behaviour)

Consider the representation below where behaviour has been shown as a continuum. The extremes may be “Selfish” and Altruistic” as shown, or perhaps as 100% unacceptable and 100% acceptable (e.g. everyone agrees that a certain act or behaviour is unacceptable at one extreme, and everyone agrees that a certain behaviour is acceptable at the other extreme.)

This illustrates how laws, which are set by society, can define what the society feels is minimally acceptable behaviour. It also shows how most people generally operate at a higher “level”.

Notes:

1) the shape of the distribution is arbitrary, for illustrative purposes

2) "distribution" can apply to a single person's moral "rating" for a range of behaviour categories, or the behaviour of a whole population for a single category (e.g. honesty)

3) sub-sets of a population can exhibit a different "distribution" (a different shape or characteristics such as mean, standard deviation etc.). E.g. a Professional group.

4) characteristics of the distribution can also change over time as the population (society) evolves.

100% Selfish 100% Altruistic

General Population

Sub- group(e.g. Professionals)

Laws Code ofEthics

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

4.1. Some notes on "Laws": "Laws are necessary because people are not fully responsible and because the competitive

nature of our free enterprise system does not always encourage the requisite moral initiative on the part of corporations" (Martin & Schinzinger, 123)

In many cases it has been found "after the fact" that laws or regulations were not properly followed. Usually the same expertise that contributed to the regulations in the first place was available to the parties committing the infraction. In the face of such moral failure, the question is often asked "If expert knowledge was available, then way was it not applied, law or no law?” (Martin & Schinzinger, 113)

There is really no ethically sound excuse why this should happen. It often results from pressure to cut corners, especially in competitive situations, and especially when the regulations are not consistently enforced (i.e. an ineffective or ‘non-law’). To some degree this may be due to the perception (or interpretation) that where laws or regulations exist, one need not apply personal moral judgment - that the laws/regulations represent that decision on behalf of the public. Thus when laws or regulations are not consistently enforced, it appears that the public is allowing a variation in required behaviour.

From an engineer’s perspective, there are a couple of problematic issues with laws. First, is that too much reliance on very detailed or specific laws and regulations can lead to “minimal compliance” (Martin & Schinzinger, 119), where an acceptable design goal is to just meet existing code. An even greater problem occurs when a design takes advantage of “loopholes” in the laws to cut corners even more. The second problem, which also follows from blindly following laws as a standard, is that they are often not up to date with new technology. Engineers must be especially conscientious when implementing new technologies, carefully considering the intent of the legislation or regulation and the potential effect on the public.

In summary, laws:

♦ can be thought of as an attempt to define a minimum standard of behaviour acceptable to the society.

♦ are a set of "rules" that are generally applied without exception. Any variation is debated before a "judgment" is made. These "rules" have been established over time, with experience and learning so that they attempt to serve the common good. (Refer: Rule Utilitarianism)

♦ are set as a minimum because: i) it would be impractical to enforce or administer if they included a large part of all behaviour, and ii) allows room for moral judgment (assume most people want to do good)

♦ are sometimes necessary to effect overall good when responsibility is divided too broadly (e.g. a large system or project where no-one has overall responsibility and each portion must be held to certain minimum standards).

♦ typically expand over time, based on experience, to protect the "public" from those with poor judgment, or those who choose to operate at the lower end of the spectrum.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

Question to consider: Are the intent of the law and the letter of the law always in concert? How could we deal with cases where they are not?

4.2. Codes of Ethics: ♦ can be thought of as "laws" for a sub-set of a population (who, as a condition of

membership or voluntarily, agree to abide by such a "code")

♦ typically higher on moral scale than general laws (contributes to respect / trust of group?)

♦ other characteristics of "Laws" can also apply to "codes" to some extent.

Roles of Codes of Ethics (Martin & Schinzinger, 106-108):

Inspiration and Guidance

Often set lofty goals as a guide for members to strive for.

Support

Supports those who seek to act ethically (e.g. "... I am bound by my code of ethics..")

Deterrence and Discipline

Acts like "laws" to enforce a standard of behaviour, and a reason to discipline those who do not comply.

Education and Mutual Understanding

Explains to members and others the responsibilities of the group (members)

Contributing to the Profession's Public Image

Presents a positive image to public of an ethical, commitment profession.

Protecting the Status Quo

Can establish conventions which can promote ethical conduct, but can also limit critical questioning or calls for change.

Promoting Business Interests

Can put unwarranted restraints on commerce (e.g. not allowing competitive bidding)

Codes of Ethics can be helpful (recall "Roles..." as discussed above):

- Guidance can be provided for the new Professional to develop appropriate standards of care. - Codes can provide support for Professionals in situations where conflicting interests exist,

e.g. "It isn't just my opinion... others would advise the same..." or "I'm compelled by my Code of Ethics to act in this matter..."

Codes of Ethics also have limitations: (Martin & Schinzinger, 109 - 111) - vagueness

o need to be interpreted, judgment must be applied

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

o because of this they can be applied to more situations (e.g. don't have to keep up with changing technological details as much)

- conflict

o different entries in the code may conflict (e.g. "protect the public" vs "duty to employer")

- not final o society, technology keep evolving, so codes need to change

o need to keep questioning, examining - proliferation

o such a variety that it sometimes gives impression that there is no "right" one o however, Oldenquist & Slowter examined numerous Engineering codes of Ethics and

found that they generally all contain entries addressing these 3 topics: 1) public interest

2) qualities of truth, honesty, fairness 3) professional performance

More questions to consider: "The regulatory debate".. Is the Public better served by more or less regulation or law? What are the effects of regulation (law) on moral / ethical decisions or responsibility?

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

5. Engineering as Managing the Unknown Engineering is similar to a "natural experiment" as opposed to an initiated one. Martin and Schinzinger refer to this as “social experimentation” (80). Fleddermann describes a similar concept as managing the unknown (3). A comparison of an engineering experiment versus a controlled laboratory experiment is shown in the following table.

Engineering Experiments

Objective is to solve problems which often involves:

- unknowns

- uncertain outcome

- monitor, learn from past experiments

- human subjects / participants often unaware, uninformed

- often don't recognize all variables

Objective to find new knowledge or answers which also involves:

- unknowns

- uncertain outcome, test hypothesis

- draw conclusions or verify hypothesis based on experience / evidence

- "informed consent" of subjects

- try to control all variables

The human participants, whether they are using a new product or living in the flood plane of a new dam, are usually unaware of their role in this process. The challenge for engineers is to recognize the experimental nature of their work and consider the safety of the public.

5.1.1. Engineers as Responsible Experimenters: To fulfil their obligations as responsible experimenters, engineers must:

- protect the safety of human subjects, providing a safe exit whenever possible, and respect their right of informed consent

- use imaginative forecasting of possible side effects, and reasonable efforts to monitor them

- have autonomous, personal involvement in all aspects of a project

- accept accountability for the results

- display technical competence and other attributes of responsible professionals

(Martin & Schinzinger, 89)

Remember, informing for consent requires excellent communications skills in order to provide appropriate information in an understandable way. Also, cooperation with other disciplines is often essential to assess potential side effects and monitor effects of "social experiments" through engineering.. (Recall Alasdair MacIntyre's virtue of professional responsibility which includes: i) self direction, ii) public spirited, iii) team work, iv) proficiency. (Martin & Schinzinger, 42))

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

6. Risk, Risk - Benefit, and Safety As Martin & Schinzinger observe, absolute safety is not practical, if not unattainable (128). This is due, for the most part, to the unavoidable uncertainties in both manufacture and use. Designing for all possible scenarios would be impractical even if we could possibly identify them! This necessarily leads to estimates and assumptions about how the finished product will perform as well as the conditions in which it will have to perform. As it is practically impossible to design for all scenarios, there will always be a certain probability that the performance or “duty” required of an item, system or process will exceed its capability. In other words, there will be a certain risk involved in its use. The trade-offs involved in making risk-affecting design decisions, including those about safety, are often made based on a cost - benefit analysis. Thus it is important for users and providers to come to an understanding concerning the risks associated with the use of a product, and the costs to decrease, or not decrease, those risks.

6.1.1. Uncertainties in Design The large number of variables which can affect both the manufactured product and the conditions of use lead to a situation in which both the capability and the duty are not deterministic, but rather have a distribution. From the Central Limit Theorem, we can surmise that these distributions are at least approximately “Normal”. The term “safety factor”, the ratio of the expected capability to the expected duty, is often heard associated with the design process. However, it does not give any useful data for determining the probability of failure. Alternatively, a “safety margin” can provide a better indication that the “overlap” between the capability and duty distributions is small enough to meet the required safety objectives. (See illustration (Martin & Schinzinger, 145). Note that the “tails” of such a distribution in theory continue infinitely in both directions, so there is always some overlap!) Relate this to William W. Lowrance’s definition that “A thing is safe if its risks are judged to be acceptable.” (Martin & Schinzinger, 130) In many real life situations, there are factors which may serve to increase the standard deviation of these distributions such that the original assumptions are invalid. While such estimates must often be made to provide a starting point, remember to represent them appropriately as part of the information required for “informed consent” of the user. Sometimes in new areas of endeavour, “I don't know” is the most appropriate piece of information to divulge. Help prevent misinterpretation “not in our experience so far” is not the same as “no risk” , it just means we don’t know yet!

6.1.2. Safety and Cost Trade-offs Generally, we can consider two types of costs that contribute to the total cost of producing a product. The initial (primary) costs are those invested before the product reaches the market, for example to design, produce and ship the product. The secondary costs accrue after the product is shipped and include expenses such as warranty, and if the product is faulty or unsafe - fines, litigation costs, lost customers, lost sales, re-design etc. The total cost associated with a product through its market life is

SafetyMargin

Safety Factor=B/A

StressA B

CapabilityDuty

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

a sum of these two. Generally, as the risk associated with a product increases, the secondary costs increase while the initial costs may be low. For a low risk product, usually the opposite is true - primary costs are higher, but secondary costs are lower. (Martin and Schinzinger, 141) This implies that there is a possible “minima” at a certain level of risk associated with most products. (See sketch (Martin and Schinzinger, 141)). While such an analysis may be interpreted as society’s acceptance of a certain level of risk, this does not necessarily mean that it is a morally acceptable level. In some circumstances, the engineer must consider whether this level of risk should even be offered to teh public, independent of whether some would willingly accept it or not. This type of morally autonomous decision making is very difficult as it required balancing respect for an individuals right to choose and the overall good of the public.

The cost - benefit trade-offs which follow from this situation often lead to the perception, and unfortunately sometimes the reality, that a monetary value is being assigned to a human life. It is an unsettling reality that there is some probability of personal injury or fatality associated with the use of many products. While this cannot be entirely avoided, it is the engineers responsibility to do his part to ensure that 1) the information necessary for users to make an accurate and informed decision about risk is available and understandable, and 2) safety considerations are a critical part of the initial design process. Further more, it is not enough that engineers simply adhere to safety standards and regulations. While they are a good starting point, they do not guarantee that the resulting product's risks will meet a professional's ethical standard of care. Imaginative forethought regarding safety (i.e. looking beyond existing experience, standards and regulations) is especially important when working in new areas or applying new techniques and technologies. (Recall the William LeMessurier / CitiCorp case.) In many cases, risk can only be estimated, as actual experience is limited. In the early stages of development of a new technology or technique, lessons are sometimes learned “the hard way”. While these are sometimes hard lesson to take, it is important that the experience be shared to increase our collective knowledge and improve safety for the future. Often lessons are not publicized for competitive or corporate image reasons, but where the potential safety of the public is concerned, any such feelings must be set aside for the greater good. Engineers have traditionally been inclined to share such information (Martin and Schinzinger, 142). For the publics sake, we must encourage others to do the same. While the above discussion to situations where there is a cost associated with improved safety, this is not always the case. Engineers should always make safety considerations (for user, manufacturer, and the environment) an integral part of the design process, even when schedule and budget pressures tempt us to “cut corners”. Remember, the further into the product life cycle that changes must be made, the more expensive they will be. Early in the design stage is the best place to incorporate safety concerns. Martin and Schinzinger give a simple example (162). Consider the two alternatives for connecting a reversing switch for an electric motor shown in the illustration at right. In both cases a switch

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

(relay) failure such as a sticking contact will cause the motor to stop. In case (a) however, it causes a short across the energy source which could lead to additional equipment damage, a fire or even an explosion. Case (b) uses exactly the same components, but eliminates a potentially negative possibility. All it took was a little consideration of safety in the early design process and virtually no significant cost compared to re-wiring 100,000 units in the field after the first big mishap!

6.1.3. Testing to Enhance Safety Knowledge Where lack of knowledge inhibits our ability to make confident predictions, testing is often used to determine failure modes. (Martin and Schinzinger , 146 – 150) When live (and usually destructive) testing cannot be accomplished (e.g. before a product is built, or in a large complex system), other techniques are used to help imaginatively generate possible failure scenarios. Simulation is very popular today because of the increasingly positive results and powerful software and computing devices.

6.1.4. Failure Analysis Techniques In circumstances where testing is either not an option or insufficient, a number of analytical techniques can be used to try to predict possible failure modes and design appropriate safeguards or improvements. Andrews et al. describe four of the most common techniques (247 – 251):

- Checklists are simply a listing of all the safety-related items that should be considered (checked) during the design and analysis of a product or system. Many of the items may be inherited from previous experiences, while others may need to be created specifically for this design. Again, using one’s imagination to predict possible uses, and abuses, of the product is important, especially in the case of new products or technology.

- Hazard and operability (HAZOP) studies are another way of eliminating problems before they arise. This technique is often used with complex systems or processes. A team of experts assesses the possible deviations from the design intent that cause failures at specific nodes in the system. They can then define specific consequences and potential hazards that can be corrected before they actually result in a failure or fatality.

- Failure modes, effects critical analysis (FMECA) is a “bottom up” approach that looks at each individual component in a system. Each is listed and analyzed to determine its modes of failure and what effect each failure would have on the performance and safety of the system. Finally, the action required to eliminate the hazards and who is responsible are identified. This technique also includes assessing the criticality predicting the probability of each failure mode.

- Fault Tree or Event Tree analysis are also popular. This is similar to FMECA except that it start at the top instead of the bottom. The effective fault tree technique starts by assuming and defining a specific failure called the top event, and then working backwards to imagine all possible upstream conditions, or combinations of conditions, that could lead to this result. This provides the designer with valuable information with which to improve the reliability and safety of the design.

Other variations may also be available to help the diligent engineer meets their professional obligation of providing a suitable level of care.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

6.1.5. Designing for Safety A multi-step process is often suggested for integrating safety considerations into design. Fleddermann summarizes one by Wilcox, which is further summarized here (66):

- Include safety issues in product definition and specifications. - Generate a number of alternatives and analyze their performance with respect to the

specifications, including the safety requirements. - Test the solutions, either with prototypes, simulation or any of the failure analysis techniques

described above. - Select and implement the best overall solution.

As a complementary checklist, Fleddermann also offers several criteria which must be met in order for an engineer to meet their obligation for safe design practice (65):

- As a minimum, the design must comply with all applicable laws and regulations. - The design must also conform to “accepted engineering practice”. A design must meet the

expectations that the typical user or buyer has come to expect based on other available products. A design must be at least as safe as similar competing products or processes.

- As part of the design process, alternatives that are potentially safer must be explored. - The engineer must use creativity and imagination to try to foresee all possible conditions of

use and misuses that the product might have to endure. While one cannot necessarily accommodate all possible scenarios, all reasonable ones must be handled, and as many other potential circumstances as the economics will allow.

- Finally, more testing, to also ensure that the final product meets the specifications and is in fact safe. As part of the engineers “ongoing autonomous involvement” in the project, one should ensure that the design intent is verified through the testing stage, including any specific safety devices. This care should also extend to ensuring that operating instructions and warning labels are clear and understandable.

6.1.6. Some Cautions with Risk - Benefit Analysis The ultimate purpose of a Risk - Benefit Analysis is to help determine if a product is worth the risk connected with using it (Martin & Schinzinger, 153). On top of all the assumptions and uncertainties that may go into any analysis, in many cases we cannot even express both sides of this equation in the same terms. In the case of the automobile for example, we might be trying to compare the benefit of personal transport to the loss of life from accidents. What's worse, in some cases the benefits accrue to one group while most of the risk falls on another (e.g. a power plant) (Fleddermann, 67). This begs the question: “Under what conditions, if any, is someone in society entitled to impose a risk on someone else on behalf of a supposed benefit to yet others?”(Martin & Schinzinger, 154). In many cases the evaluation is based on such a broad cross section of society that they cannot practically be consulted directly. While Fleddermann says “It is important to be sure that those who are taking the risks are also those who are benefiting” (67), this is almost impossible to implement in many situations. Perhaps providing adequate information and ensuring an open debate will help all those involved make an informed decision and receive compensation when

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

appropriate.

The fact that sometimes the benefits or risks or both are displaced in time also complicates matters even more (Martin & Schinzinger, 153). Even with these problems, Risk - Benefit Analysis can still be a very useful tool, especially when used to compare alternative methods of providing the same benefit. For example, in the field of power generation, the benefits are assumed the same for alternative generating methods, and the costs or risks can be compared to determine the preferable option.

In doing Risk - Benefit Analysis in situations concerning public safety, it often appears that capital costs are compared to a “dollar value” for a human life (e.g. fatalities on a certain stretch of highway versus the costs to improve that section). As mentioned above, this type of analysis can still be very useful in deciding priorities for spending limited resources. For instance, if reliable statistics were available on the umber of fatalities on different sections of highway along with the costs to improve these sections, one can use this to decide which section to improve first. However, care must be taken to present such analysis in a way that helps the public understand that the intent and the actions are to maximize the saving of lives. If presented poorly, it can look like, for instance, that the “value” of a human life is being assigned some fixed monetary value for engineering economic purposes. While “figures” are invaluable in making planning decisions, they can seem insensitive or mercenary if treated inappropriately. Too often these types of “figures” are interpreted in a negative light. As partial explanation for their use, and a warning, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration noted “We have provided an estimate of some of the quantifiable losses in social welfare resulting from a fatality and can only hope that this estimate is not construed as some type of basis for determining the _ optimal' (or even worse, the ‘ maximum') amount of expenditure to be allocated to saving lives.” (Martin & Schinzinger, 156)

Engineers are often called to be part of the public process of examining costs and benefits in order to either improve regulations and standards or in litigation against those who have failed to do so. In all cases, the engineer should be wary of statistics and presentation methods, both in giving and receiving (Martin & Schinzinger, 159). Remember, meaningful and understandable information is what is required for informed consent. Engineers are usually afforded more respect than an equally versed lay person (157). This reinforces their responsibility to declare biases or possible conflicts, to present data in a “friendly” and understandable way, and finally to avoid comments in areas outside their expertise.

6.2. Assessment and Acceptance of Risk People will often make decisions on the level of personal risk they are willing to take given the information they have available, even if it is inaccurate or inadequate. It is in part the engineer's responsibility to ensure that the information they provide is sufficient and understandable. People are generally willing to assume a higher level of risk in situations where they feel they have control of their own choices, and can do so voluntarily, versus situations where they must assume involuntary risk (Martin & Schinzinger, 133). They also list magnitude and proximity as factors (137). People are usually more concerned or sensitive to a gain or loss that directly affects them (close proximity) versus one that is far away. E.g., the loss of a family member is much more serious than the loss a complete stranger on the other side of the word. People are also usually sensitive to the magnitude of consequence, for instance a plane crash that kills hundreds in one

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

mishap, while relatively insensitive to the thousands killed in numerous automobile accidents. Fleddermann summarizes a number of other considerations that affect this type of subjective decision (64):

1. Severity of consequences – people will feel it is less risky if they believe they can easily recover from the injury than if it causes a permanent impairment. Similarly, the reversibility of the result will affect their decision.

2. Expected probability – people will generally discount the risk if the probability is very low. People will accept the risk of a fatal airplane crash but avoid the higher probability of a sever injury, but not death, that might result from say mountain biking.

3. Timing - people have a tendency to discount the effect of events that are a long way into the future. In part, the “out of sight, out of mind” phenomenon is in effect. Another contributor might be that we feel there is time for a solution to be found or something else to affect the outcome. Finally, we may acknowledge that the estimates or predictions have some error and the outcome is less certain of further in the future.

4. Threshold level of risk – people are generally more tolerant of risks that only have severe consequences at high levels of exposure.

Another factor affecting decisions on risk is people's perception of the amount of effort (e.g. cost) required to attain a benefit or avoid a loss (Martin & Schinzinger, 135). In general, this relationship may be represented by a function as shown in the diagram. This “curve” is characterized by the following sections: Close to the origin, there is a small threshold area where people typically i) don't bother putting much effort into avoiding very small losses thus voiding “issues overload” or unnecessary anxiety, and ii) a similar inertia on the positive side where people won't bother putting much effort into minimal gains. After the threshold areas, there are areas where people will put in a given amount of effort or resource for a given gain or to avoid a given loss. The “slope” is typically steeper on the loss side than on the gain side which reflects a general attitude of being more concerned with avoiding serious loss than attaining big gains. Finally, the curves tend to flatten out, reflecting the reality that people have limited resources to expend, no matter what the consequence. They may put everything they have into avoiding a very serious loss (or attaining a huge gain), but when they've run out of resource, they have no choice but to give up (on either side). Also important to note, the shape of such a “curve” is very individual and is also affected by other personal and contextual factors.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

6.3. Effect of Information Recall that part of “responsible experimentation” is the “informed consent” of the people who may be affected by the “experiment”. It may often fall on the engineer's shoulders to help provide information so that subjects can accurately assess risk as it pertains to them. People's assessment and decisions regarding risk can be affected significantly by how the information is presented. Consider the following example from Martin and Schinzinger (134):

“Imagine that the U. S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follow: “If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If Program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3

probability that no people will be saved. Which Program would you favour?”

Martin and Schinzinger report that researchers apparently tested this question. 72% of the respondents selected “A”, the rest selected “B”. A second group was also asked to choose between two alternative programs, but they were described as follows:

“ If Program C is adopted, 400 people will die. If Program D is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and a 2/3 probability that

600 people will die. Which of the two programs would you favour?”

This time only 22% chose “C”, which is the same as “A”, the remainder chose “D”, which is the same as “B”. It is left to you to consider why the results were as they were. The main lesson here is that the presentation can have a significant effect on people's decisions concerning risk, and providing the information needed for “informed consent” may require more than one format and always requires careful consideration beforehand.

6.4. Faulty Assumptions about Safety Martin and Schinzinger warn that engineers are faced with making decisions about safety and risk versus benefits in an atmosphere of potentially misleading assumptions (160 – 161):

- Assumption: Operator error and negligence cause most accidents. - Reality: Dangerous situations contribute significantly - design can improve this. E.g.

Automatic couplers for rail cars greatly reduced accidents. - Assumption: Improving safety invariably costs money.

- Reality: Safe designs are often no more expensive than others. Even if initial costs are a bit higher, the overall life cycle costs are usually lower.

- Assumption: We learn about safety after a product is completed and tested. - Reality: “imaginative forecasting” and testing alternatives in the design stage can prevent

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

accidents when the product is introduced.

- Assumption: Warnings about hazards are all that's required. - Reality: Warning's merely acknowledge that a hazard is known. It does nothing proactive to

prevent accidents or reduce risks. - Some examples: magnetic door catches on fridges (too late for some!); dead-man brake on

Railway engines; “fail safe” stop signals on the railways (dates back over 100 years!); automatic seat belts (Volkswagen).

Final note: “If moral concerns alone do not inspire engineers and their employers to heed potential risks, then recent trends in product liability law should certainly do so.” (162)

6.5. Liability The trends in interest and law concerning the public's safety have evolved from a situation where the manufacturer was protected in almost all cases, to a current situation where manufacturers are called strictly to task for even the slightest form of negligence or less. (Martin and Schinzinger, 162) Another relevant trend is that individuals within organizations are being singled out and held responsible for the actions of their companies! Often early precedent setting cases strive to make examples of their first targets.

6.6. Lessons from Three Mile Island and “Safe Exit” Although the incident in 1979 at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant did not result in any fatalities or serious injuries (unlike the unfortunate case which followed at Chernobyl in 1986), there are still many opportunities to learn from past mistakes and hopefully avoid accidents in the future. These examples involve principles or “rules of thumb” discussed elsewhere, but are related here to real world events recounted by Martin and Schinzinger (167 – 180) in an attempt to substantiate their utility.

“There is both wisdom and error in public perceptions” - “Walter Creitz, President of Metropolitan Edison ... [which operated the Three Mile Island Plant] was obviously annoyed at a series of articles in a local newspaper citing unsafe conditions at Unit 2 of their plant. He dismissed the stories as “something less than a patriotic act - comparable in recklessness... to shouting fire in a crowded theatre”. A few days later, a minor malfunction at the plant turned “Three Mile Island” into a household word(s)! (168) Perhaps if he had looked harder for the “wisdom” in this perception, he may have found and solved some of the problems that did lead to this world famous incident. “Safety considerations should be an integral part of the design process, using imaginative forecasting to anticipate possible failure modes.” - In retrospect, it would seem a simple and obvious task to provide positive confirmation to the operators on the successful operation of the pressure relief valve so they would realized it was stuck open. A “fault tree analysis” may have uncovered this possibility, and a safer design for the feedback mechanism may have averted the incident altogether. Another example is that during the emergency, a printer that reported alarms was so busy it fell as much as 2.5 hrs behind in reporting the events! (167) “When it comes to Public safety, an engineer's inclination towards teamwork should result in

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

efforts to share information and experience about failure modes with others so that public safety may be improved and disasters averted.” - The type of relief valve that had stuck open in this case had also done so at other nuclear plants. In fact, there had been 11 similar valve failures since 1970! Had this information been shared or heeded, in combination with appropriate analysis, it may have led to corrective action before the accident.

“People tend to be optimistic concerning risks for things with which we have become familiar, and have not hurt us before” - This was evident at both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl where the operations management became somewhat complacent based, probably, on the perception that there had not been mishaps before, or that it “couldn't happen here”. This complacency may have also contributed to the poorly trained operation staff involved in both these incidents, both in terms of management neglect and the fact that the operators had never in their lives had to deal with these circumstances. Misrepresentation of “no data” as “no risk” on the part of the original proponents may have also contributed to the operators complacency.

If there's anything we can conclude from the probabilistic nature of both design and events, and reinforced by our collective experiences, it is that if something can happen, it will...eventually! (Commonly known to the layperson as ‘_ Murphy's Law’!). Whenever the failure of a product. system or process will put people in certain peril (either because of the inherent and acknowledged risk, or because of the unknown level of risk), every attempt must be made to provide a safe exit (Martin & Schinzinger, 179). “Safe exit” is a method of allowing potential victims to avoid (or at least minimize) personal harm in the event that a “worst case” scenario occurs. In cases like a potential Nuclear Power Plant, where failure modes and results are still not well known, a civic evacuation plan may be a suitable “safe exit”. In cases where a safe exit cannot reasonably be provided (e.g. total power failure or structural failure in an commercial aircraft), every effort must be made through design techniques such as redundancy and simulation analysis to minimize risk where life is at stake. In cases where the risk cannot practically be reduced to an acceptable level, the “Experiment” should be terminated before disaster occurs. This is certainly one of the most difficult professional challenges an engineer may face in practice.

6.7. Lesson for Engineers: People generally have two simultaneous and conflicting conceptions regarding safety (Martin and Schinzinger, 137). One, there is an unrealistic optimism that things with which they are familiar, haven't hurt them thus far, and over which they have some control do not present any real risks. On the other hand, they generally react strongly (disproportionately) when an accident kills or harms a large number of people (or even material loss), even if it is an extremely rare occurrence. We should also keep in mind the following general characteristics affecting such valuations and decisions (138): 1) Perceptions change slowly - once we have formed an opinion, new evidence is “filtered” such that

we tend to discount that which does not support our original conclusion and highlight that which does.

2) Expert opinion is no advantage - experts, in general, have proven to be no better equipped to judge risks than anyone else.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

3) There is both wisdom as well as error in public perception! Sometimes the public is misinformed or lacks sufficient understanding to adequately assess risks (herein lies an opportunity and responsibility for professionals to share their skills and knowledge). Other times they see things from an unbiased perspective that the “experts” involved fail to see.

** Look hard for the wisdom - avoid falling victim to the phenomenon described in 1) **

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

7. Duties and Responsibilities of Engineers “First, responsibility refers to the obligation of professionals to use their specialized knowledge and skill in a way that benefits clients and the public and does not violate the trust placed in them.” (Harris et al, 22) This is referred to by them as “obligation-responsibility”. They go on to define “blame-responsibility” as a means of identifying who is at fault if something goes wrong. Finally, they add the concept of “role-responsibility” pertaining to those with administrative responsibility, for example within an organization or for a project. All of these aspects of responsibility apply to engineering professionals. In this chapter, the focus will be on those aspects related to professionalism and engineers common role as employees. The majority of graduating engineers will find themselves in the employ of organizations whose products or services are the result of an integration of expertise from a variety of disciplines. Even those who join consulting firms or other firms where the main output is engineering services or works will be considered an “employee engineer” with most of the same obligations and responsibilities as engineers in other organizations. In a general sense, these responsibilities are the same as those to a client or customer - to “act as faithful agents of their clients or employers” (EGP Act, Regulatory Bylaws Section 20 (2)). Moral dilemmas may arise for a variety of reasons, and the engineer must make decisions considering their responsibility to their employer and to the public as well as other professional responsibilities.

7.1. Confidentiality Confidentiality is one of the most central and widely acknowledged duties of most professionals. Indeed, information gained in confidence can be considered part of engineers’ “specialized” knowledge which is required to do their job properly and professionally. To discuss the related issues, we first refer to a few definitions (Martin and Schinzinger, 208 – 210):

- confidential information is any information deemed desirable to keep secret

- privileged information is often used as a synonym for “confidential, but literally means available only on the basis of special privilege.

- proprietary information is information that a company owns or is the proprietor of, often considered as an asset which can be protected by law from use by others.

- trade secrets are another form of proprietary information which is any type of information that has not become public and which an employer has taken steps to keep secret.

- patents are a method of legal protection of ideas for a specified period (currently 20 years in Canada). Patents and trade secrets have the same objectives but each has its advantages and disadvantages. While patents offer some legal protection, they necessarily reveal some aspects of the idea in the public forum which can lead to improvement and use by others (which is indeed one of the reasons for the patent process). Trade secrets can keep all aspects of an idea from the public, but should it leak out (through a former employee or espionage), there is no legal way to prevent its use.

Normal reason would dictate that an engineer has a firm obligation to their employer or client to

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

keep information confidential. In most cases, the professional requires all relevant information in order to do the best job for their client. Trusting that this information will be kept confidential helps facilitate this relationship and a quality result. In the case of corporate secrets, it can be argued that it is also in the public’s interest to allow innovative companies the opportunity to recoup their development costs by exploiting their inventions, and engineers should do their part to support this process. One set of issues has to do with determining what information is confidential, for how long, and under what circumstances. Certainly the circumstances where public safety is at stake may warrant exceptions to otherwise strict rules (Martin and Schinzinger, 212), but again each situation should be studied carefully. Generally, information that someone outside a company or client relationship could obtain legal access to by some other means would not be considered confidential. For example, this could include some information included in patent applications or public annual reports. Remember however that interpretation of that information may not be easily accessible, and engineers are often asked to interpret technical information. (Remember one’s obligation to one’s client or employer to protect their interests. If in doubt - speak not!) As for timeframe, until it’s public, it’s confidential! One of the trickiest situation that may be encountered is when an engineer changes employers. Usually there is an implied confidentiality agreement if not an explicit one. This is especially an issue when an engineer goes to work for another company in the same line of business. It should be clear that an engineer cannot directly use any trade secrets or proprietary information in order to give their new employer a competitive advantage (even though in some industries this is a common practice to acquire new knowledge or technology!). The issue is much more subtle when it comes to expertise the engineer has developed that is more general in nature. Generally, it is becoming recognized that much of the knowledge developed on the job is owned as much by the engineer as the company, and it is their right to look after their own self interests and better their situation (Martin and Schinzinger, 213). Of course, each situation is unique, and should be examined carefully with respect to possible confidentiality infringements. In recent times, explicit confidentiality agreements have attempted to strike a reasonable middle ground by either offering incentives to departing employees to keep secrets, or by specifying conditions or timeframes thus making the decisions clearer. (214) However, an explicit agreement is not an excuse to ignore one’s moral obligations (recall the potential effect of following just the letter of the law!).

7.2. Conflicts of Interest “Professional conflicts of interest are situations where professionals have an interest which if pursued might keep them from meeting their obligations to their employers or clients.” (Martin and Schinzinger, 216) This may be due to impaired judgment or distortion of one’s objectivity. Even if it could be proven that a person would never allow a side interest to affect their judgment (216), they are still in a conflict of interest which may reflect badly on their own reputation or that of the profession. Harris et al define three type of conflicts: actual, where a person is clearly in a compromised position; potential, where they will be in an actual conflict if they happen to take certain actions in the future; and apparent, where they may appear to be in a conflict of interest from an outsider’s point of view, but in fact are not (145). Several common situations that may be considered conflicts of interest are discussed briefly below.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

Gifts and bribes are often sources of potential conflict. As shown in many case examples, this may seem very clear on the surface, but in practice can become very blurry. As stated above, whether or not it can be shown that the “gift” had no effect on the outcome, it is still a negative practice to support in that is promotes behaviour that will generally distort a fair system of competition and business practices. Complacency or “turning a blind eye” is equally questionable for the same reason. Most companies and organizations now have specific guidelines to help employees, including engineers, decide whether an offered gift can be accepted without creating a conflict of interest. As professionals, there is a higher expectation for engineers to set a clear and uncompromising example in these situations.

Interests in other companies and “moonlighting” (the practice of taking a second, part-time job in addition to one’s main employment) can also distort one’s professional decisions. The safest practice, other than avoiding these situations to start with, is to make sure that any potential conflicts are made known clearly, at the earliest appropriate time, to the interested parties (your boss, client, customer etc.). Often moonlighting has positive effects for both the employee and the employer (Martin and Schinzinger, 220) , but one should be aware of the subtle disservice that arises when so much mental energy is expended on outside activities that one cannot fulfil one’s professional obligations to an employer (this may result from non-profit outside activity as well, e.g an excess of volunteer work). Insider information is a variant of confidential information that can be used to advantage in some circumstances. “Insider trading” offences are one example that is commonly in the public eye, but there are many other situations that hold the same pitfalls and conflicts of interest. An example might be knowledge of urban zoning plans and “scooping up” property which is to be annexed.

7.3. Loyalty Collegiality (“shared power and authority vested among colleagues”) is considered an important virtue for engineers. It is referred to, either directly or indirectly, in many Codes of Ethics as an obligation to respect the expertise and professionalism of others and to not act in a manner that would harm fellow professionals (e.g. unfounded criticism). This can also be thought of as “team play” and can also be considered a virtue in that sense. This can be applied to an engineer’s relationship with their employer, where there is an obligation to respect the roles and decisions of other areas of the organization, including management. The central elements of collegiality are (Martin and Schinzinger, 190):

respect - valuing one’s peers for their professional expertise, and affirming the worth of others in producing socially safe and useful products;

commitment - sharing a concern for overall goals and the good of the organization; connectedness - realization that one is part of larger, cooperative undertaking which can be

accomplished through shared commitment and expertise; cooperation - a commitment to the team effort, doing one’s share and making a contribution

based on your expertise and abilities and supporting the same from others. While collegial respect should be reciprocal, it does not depend on friendship or personal affection.

Loyalty is similar in some respects to collegiality, and is described by Martin and Schinzinger in two senses (191):

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

Agency loyalty - fulfilling one’s contractual duties to an employer, which is based almost entirely on actions, and

Identification loyalty - which has more to do with attitudes and emotions and implies personally “identifying” with the organization.

While Agency loyalty is an obligation or duty owed one’s employer, Identification loyalty, while desirable for both the employer and employee, is optional. Some argue differently. John H. Fielder, for example (Martin and Schinzinger, 191), argues that identification loyalty is an obligation if the employer meets the two conditions of fulfilling employees personal goals (to at least a reasonable extent), and treating them fairly. Generally, identification loyalty is reciprocal; if the Company is loyal to and respectful of employees, the employees while likely feel the same (193). A judicious amount of loyalty is generally considered a good thing, even virtuous, but when it reaches a level of fanaticism it can be very harmful. Engineers, with a paramount obligation to consider the public’s interests, can find themselves in a situation of conflict or moral dilemma when pressured to remain “loyal” and consider the survival of the organization. (Consider, for example, the “whistle blowing” cases where the engineer has to “break ranks” with the organization to fulfil their higher obligation to the public. Also consider cases where falsification of test results has come to light, where the person involved was most likely motivated by loyalty and trying to protect the company even though it turned out harming them in the end.) For the Professional, it is usually in the best interests of all concerned to meet their higher obligations to the public in the first place, and is always their duty to do so. In some cases the engineer is asked, ordered or even coerced into not pushing their technical opinion any further for the sake of corporate survival or to protect reputations. In some cases this is an economic reality and one may choose to comply for the sake of the company and their own personal well being. However, in cases where public safety is concerned, or where there is potential for a significant negative effect related to public interest, the engineer’s professional obligations require them to put loyalty second. Where a potential conflict arises, try to build a thoroughly researched case and communicate the alternatives and possible outcomes clearly and effectively. Look for creative solutions that will meet your professional obligations and as many of your personal needs and the Company’s needs as possible.

7.4. Authority The “loyalty” discussed above can be thought of as a duty which is owed one’s employer because of their right to have control over the decisions affecting their company. This right is called “authority”. In this context, it can be called institutional authority, as opposed to expert authority which follows from the possession of specialized knowledge. This institutional authority is granted by the institution and is a necessary component of the organizational fabric of all companies. Without it, defining direction and meeting the goals of the company would be impossible in most cases. This authority also typically carries with it an allotment of resources that can be used to accomplish the goals of the company (Martin and Schinzinger, 197). Engineers, for example, may have expert authority in cases where they have little or no institutional authority. Power is slightly different in nature. Where authority refers to the potential and resources to

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

accomplish tasks, power is more like the capability to get them done. Power also comes in two flavours: positional and personal. Positional power is the capability inferred because of the authority granted to someone by the institution (people will assist or cooperate because the person is “the boss”). Personal power is often based on the respect one has earned through actions and reputation (people want to help because they trust the persons judgement and want to help that individual for almost ‘personal’ reasons). When a person has both positional power and personal power coincide, chances of success are optimum. Often in organizations people with little or no positional power have great personal power and are able to accomplish great things for the organization

Employee engineers have a duty to obey “morally justified authority” as defined by Martin and Schinzinger (197 – 198). Institutional rights and duties are not always morally justified. An engineer has a professional obligation to exercise moral autonomy in decisions regarding authority. One must ask if the actions requested are in concert with a morally permissible or desirable outcome and not just put one’s critical faculties “off line” and conform to management’s orders (199). (This obligation often does not extend to other members of the organization, so one cannot rely on others for examples or guidance.) Finally, one may have to decide whether institutional goals are morally justified, or whether an act violates basic human rights (note: human rights follow from one being human, and not from being part of an organization). Two potentially conflicting thoughts from Martin and Schinzinger to conclude (200):

1) The engineer’s obligation to the public is paramount; thus it should override duty to the organization in cases where: lives are threatened, financial corruption is involved, or grave economic loss might result. 2) While exercising professional autonomy entails independent thought, it does not mean disregarding legitimate directives.

7.5. Engineers and Collective Bargaining Over the years, the eligibility or inclusion of engineers in unions has been a hotly debated topic. There have been those who felt that professionalism and unionism were diametrically opposed philosophies, and those that argued that there were potentially significant benefits. The main point of contention centres around strikes or similar job action. While some feel that unions may help provide the environment where engineers are allowed to exercise their professional autonomy without the fear of standing alone, there are some arguments against withdrawal of services.

In the past, Codes of Ethics or Conduct have often included the obligation to not actively participate in strikes, picket lines etc. It was felt that this contradicted the engineers obligation to act as a “faithful agent” for their clients or employers. (Martin and Schinzinger, 203) Also argued was the point of their duty to the public, which may not be served by withdrawing services for personal gain (204). Recently, there has been more recognition that duty to client or employer does not always mean one should sacrifice one’s self interest (205). Another indication is the statement, often included in “rights of engineers” regarding “suitable compensation”. It could even be argued that the long-term public interest may be better served if engineers are adequately compensated (for example by allowing them to focus on maintaining their expertise instead of being overworked to make ends meet, or by attracting competent people to the profession).

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

Clearly the view of engineers and collective bargaining or job action has changed to reflect the idea that an engineer has a right to protect their self interests. However, one must carefully examine the potential effect on the Profession as a whole of such action, especially if there is any potential danger to the public.

7.6. Occupational crimes “Occupational crimes are illegal acts made possible through one’s lawful employment.” (Martin and Schinzinger, 224) Occupational crimes vary from simple employee theft to complex schemes for price fixing or bid rigging. They qualify as conflicts of interest in that a person has a duty to act in good faith on behalf of their employer and the public, but may have knowledge or opportunity due to their employment that could better their self interests, sometimes without any significant harm to anyone. In cases of pure theft, there is little conflict and no redeeming rationale. But consider the example used above of real estate manipulation. If one is only privy to such information but not controlling it, it may be easy to rationalize that they have as much right to a windfall as the next person, and even “sharing” it by paying current owners a good price for such property. Another example of “white collar” crime is the previously publicized case of “fraction skimming”, where an enterprising programmer arranged for all the fractions of a cent that were “left over” in the course of automated bank transactions to be transferred to his own bank account!

7.6.1. Industrial espionage Industrial espionage is an illegal way for one company to obtain proprietary information or trade secrets from another. Although more common in some industries, it is possible in many. While there is usually only one (or minimal number) person who orchestrates the actual transfer, there are often a number of “inside” people involved, some of whom may not be fully aware of the overall scheme and the consequences of their part. Clearly the instigator (go-between, broker) is guilty of immoral, unethical and illegal behaviour, but the shared responsibility of the lesser participants is not always as clear. In all cases, one should be in safe territory if one adheres to strict guidelines and good ethical judgement regarding confidential information.

7.6.2. Price fixing Price fixing is another form of occupational crime that involves anti-competitive behaviour that it usually not in the public’s interest. It can be directed towards prices offered to the public or in supposedly “competitive” bids. Over the years, legal restrictions have been strengthened to prevent such anti-competitive dealings. Some of those who have been exposed inter past have argued that there was actually a public benefit in such practices in that it served to stabilize prices, ensure reasonable profits and protect jobs. (Martin and Schinzinger, 227) In general however, all such practices are considered contrary to the public’s interest and should be considered unethical behaviour for any professionals.

7.6.3. Safety Violations The final area of occupational crime discussion involves endangering lives, particularly of employees, Professionals often find themselves in a position to affect the safety of other employees, either as mangers themselves or as specialists. This is another area where the trend over time has been to tighten laws and regulations regarding worker safety, and increase the exposure and range or responsibility for those involved. As an example, there was a case of cyanide poisoning in the film

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

(silver) recovery industry where executives of the company were found guilty of murder under an Illinois statute that states that “ a person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death... he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another.”. (Martin and Schinzinger, 229) Professionals must always be vigilant for situations that might be, or might be perceived to be, negligent with respect to employee safety.

7.7. Environmental Responsibilities In concert with their responsibility for the public’s health and safety, engineers have a duty of care for the natural environment. This obligation is specifically stated in the codes of ethics of more and more professional associations including the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (APEGS). The first, and thus highest priority, point in the APEGS code states “hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment and promote health and safety within the workplace” (Regulatory Bylaws, Section 20 (2) (a)). While some may argue the anthropocentric view that the obligation is justified by, and related only to human dependence on the natural environment (Herkert, 216), there are other arguments and justifications for its preservation and protection (Harris et al, 233-237). This topic is mentioned here for its relevance as an specific area of responsibility for the engineering profession, and, along with the broader topic of “sustainable development”, is treated in depth in another section of this document.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

8. Rights of Engineers Engineers have rights based on their position in society. Martin & Schinzinger discuss these in Ethics in Engineering. (236-244) They have human rights because they are people, and they share this status with all other people in the world, or at least in their culture. They often have employee or institutional rights because they are working under either an implied or explicit "employment contract" with a company, as are many others who are not engineers. Finally, they have professional rights which follow from their training and skill as engineers, and, which many would reason, follow from their professional obligations and duties. Of these, professional rights are most unique to engineers. The first part of this discussion deals primarily with these rights and the issues which arise because of them. As mentioned in the discussion of duties and responsibilities to employers (Chapter 7), very few engineers would not essentially be employees in the generic sense. As such, the exercise of their professional obligations to act ethically and protect the public's interests may come into conflict with their obligations to their employers or clients. This is when examination of those rights, and their balancing with employer rights, comes in to play. For example, do engineers have the moral right to refuse to participate in what they consider unethical activities? Do they have the right to dissent without retribution? Do they have the right to "blow the whistle"? Two trends are influencing the answers to these and related questions. First, the traditional view of the employer having absolute power over their employees is being challenged and is changing to explicitly recognize that employees do have certain rights. With these rights comes responsibility, and the public is becoming more demanding that employees faithfully exercise that responsibility. This is evidenced in a second trend, to hold individuals within an organization personally liable for their actions. (Example: recent changes in laws that hold that directors of Corporations can be held personally liable for the misdeeds of that Corporation.) Thus engineers, whether employees or otherwise, are expected to fulfil their professional obligations, especially when it comes to the public interest and safety. Professional rights, according to Martin & Schinzinger, include the following (237-242):

• to exercise one's professional judgement (without intimidation),

• to not participate in, or condone unethical activity,

• talk publicly about one's work, respecting appropriate confidentiality,

• engage in the activities of professional organizations,

• to protect the public from serious risk or harm due to one's work,

• and the right to professional recognition, including "fair remuneration".

These are in addition to human rights and employee (institutional) rights. The first right is one that is a basic and generic right of professionals: to use responsible professional judgement in performing one's responsibilities. Martin and Schinzinger refer to this as the right of professional conscience. It calls for autonomous moral judgement by the engineer in what are often complex moral situations. This implies that one can exercise this right without interference. In this sense, “It is a liberty or "negative" right, since it places an obligation on others not to interfere…”. (238) Of course, just "not interfering" may not be enough; management must accept some

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

responsibility for creating an atmosphere of trust and support which promotes appropriate behaviour by its professionals. There are those that also argue that "professional conscience" should receive institutional recognition on a formal level. (Martin & Schinzinger, 239) This follows the reasoning that engineers will only have this right if employers and fellow employees acknowledge it. They go on to discuss the right to recognition and the right of conscientious refusal which, together with the right of professional conscience, spawn the professional rights listed above. The right of conscientious refusal can be defined as “…the right to refuse to engage in unethical behaviour, and to refuse to do so solely because one views it as unethical.” (240) This questionable behaviour generally falls into one of two categories. One, that behaviour which is generally viewed in the profession as unethical. Examples are: forging documents, lying, falsifying test results, giving or taking bribes, padding expenses etc. There is usually no argument that one should have the right to refuse to engage in such behaviour. The second category is where there is room for differing yet reasonable opinions about whether an act is unethical. An example might be a company who has taken on the design of weapon intended for use in military situations. To some people, such work may be unethical, while to others it is not. Where it is generally acknowledged that there are differing opinions on a particular subject, one should (and generally does) have the right to refuse to participate. This is, however, a limited right in that it does not give one the right to demand that others do not participate. Further, it may be limited by the employer's situation and whether one can practically be re-assigned to other work (one may have to agree to resign). As an extreme example, one cannot agree to accept a job with a weapons manufacturer and then refuse to work on weapons related projects on ethical grounds. But remember, “The right of professional conscience does not extend to the right to be paid for not working.” (241) Engineers also have a right to professional recognition for their work. This includes both “…monetary remuneration, and part non-monetary forms of recognition.” (241) Obtaining satisfaction from one's work is an essential part of a fulfilling lifestyle. Working without recognition is difficult, demeaning and ultimately unhealthy. (241) While monetary compensation may seem to be only in the engineer's self interest, there is good reason related to the public's benefit. Without fair compensation, an engineer may be preoccupied with monetary worries and unable to concentrate sufficiently on their work and on maintaining their professional competence. This could ultimately lead to increased risks for the public.

8.1.1. A Note on Specificity of Rights, and Abstraction Specific rights can be stated in different ways. As a particular professional obligation is defined in less abstract terms, the corresponding right becomes more specific. As an example, in some well defined circumstances, the engineers obligation to protect the public may mean that they have a limited right to "blow the whistle". (Martin & Schinzinger, 239-240) The "whistle blowing" right becomes more precisely defined as the conditions are listed in more detail (less abstract terms). Martin and Schinzinger discuss these potential pitfalls so that we can recognize and avoid them. (240) First, we must not dismiss the significance of some professional rights just because they are stated in abstract or general terms. This is also true of other rights. For example, the right to life in the abstract may sound like it means the right to never be killed, but it does not. In the case of self

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

defence for instance, the attacker's right to live is superseded by the potential victim's. But just because there may be specific circumstances where the abstract rule doesn't seem to apply, we cannot dismiss its usefulness as a general guide.

The second danger is that rights are talked about too generally when being more specific is required. We must recognize that rights may be limited in some cases where we can define specific extenuating circumstances, even including protection of the public. Neither rights of engineers nor those of employers can be considered absolute moral passes. Specifics must be considered, and moral decisions made.

8.2. Whistle Blowing Whistle blowing can be defined as an act where “…an employee or former employee conveys information about a significant moral problem outside approved organizational channels … to someone in a position to take action on the problem.” (Martin & Schinzinger, 247) Martin & Schinzinger define four main features of whistle blowing: the act of disclosure (intentionally conveying information outside of normal channels), the topic (the information on the concern or moral issue like criminal behaviour, unethical practices, safety issues etc.), the agent (the person disclosing the information), and the recipient (the person or organization to whom the information is given, and who is in a position to do something meaningful with it). (247) They further characterize whistle blowing as either internal to the organization, or external when the information is passed outside the organization. Also, it can be either open (when the whistle blower's identity is divulged) or anonymous (when it is not). Finally, it can be either active (when the agent deliberately seeks out a recipient in order to divulge information), or passive (when the agent divulges information in response to an inquiry that is initiated for other reasons). (247-248) Many cases of whistle blowing involve combinations of these alternatives, and may even change as the situation progresses. For example, Ernest Fitzgerald and his revelation of severe cost overruns on the C-5A project within Lockheed Aircraft Corporation started off as open-internal-active whistle blowing, but ended as open-external-passive whistle blowing in front of Senator Proxmire's inquiry. ((Martin & Schinzinger, 249-250) Engineer's may have limited rights, and in some cases even obligations, for whistle blowing, but such action should never be taken lightly. It is a serious decision that has traditionally resulted in hardship for the whistle blowers and their families. Nonetheless, when it is required as a last resort the engineer should be prepared to act according to their principles and ethical obligations.

Richard T. De George has suggested that external whistle blowing is morally permissible when the following conditions are met (Martin & Schinzinger, 251-252):

1) the threat to the public is serious and considerable 2) if they try their superiors first, and

3) they exhaust the channels available within the organization, including the Board of directors. He gives two other conditions that would make the act obligatory:

4) one must have documented evidence that would convince a "reasonable person" that their view was the correct one, and

5) that there is strong evidence that going public will in fact prevent the threatened harm.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

Critics ,however, have pointed out several difficulties with using these as guidelines. (Martin & Schinzinger, 252-253) First, 1) is vague enough that it could include things like rights violations or fraud. Second, 2) and 3) may not be possible in some circumstances, for instance if your superior or Company management are the problem. Thirdly, it isn't clear why the first three conditions only make the act permissible and not obligatory (with exceptions, when considering other obligations). Fourth, the final conditions seem too strong. Certainly whistle blowing of any degree requires substantial documented evidence so ensure that Companies or individuals are not falsely accused. Often the agent does not possess all the evidence, but rather raises concerns in hopes of initiating an investigation that will gather appropriate evidence to either prove there is no problem or instigate its correction. Finally, there is no discussion of personal obligations and how they may be factored into the overall decision.

Considering the history of major incidents, one's personal obligations to family, community or colleagues may mean they have to continue to pursue alternative avenues, unless of course people's safety is in immediate danger. A somewhat supporting consideration is that often engineers share responsibility for products with a number of others, and it is not necessarily fair that they and their families be expected to suffer the consequences and take up the moral slack for others. In conclusion, De George's criteria at least point out the importance of responsibilities to employers and the obligation to work first within an organization. (253) Probability of success in these cases can be improved by developing and exercising good communications skills.

8.2.1. Protecting Whistle Blowers: As mentioned above, the experiences of whistle blowers in the past had not generally been favourable. They have usually suffered some form of prosecution from employers, colleagues or their community. Also mentioned above was the current trend for individuals, especially mangers and professionals, to take a personal responsibility for the effects of their work and that of their organizations. This same trend also recognizes both the necessity for whistle blowing in some circumstances (for the ultimate benefit of the public), and the personal risks assumed by the agent. As a result, society has moved toward providing some form of legal or contractual protection for whistle blowers. (Martin & Schinzinger, 253) While not widespread, the trend is clear. Remember, the motivation behind this trend is to encourage hazardous or unethical situations to come to light for the ultimate safety of the public, and that the public's interest is always a paramount responsibility of professionals such as engineers. In conclusion, the decision to "blow the whistle" should be considered a very serious one with broad potential impacts. The engineer's right to do so, is a right limited by other considerations such as responsibility to one's employer, family and community. External whistle blowing particularly should be considered only as a last resort. The following suggestions are offered by Martin & Schinzinger to assist in such a decision (254-255):

1) always work through normal channels first, except when the danger is immediate and there is no time such procedures,

2) voice your opposition or concerns as early as possible, delaying only reflects negatively on your motives (be sure to weigh urgency of the situation with the time it takes to research your concerns),

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

3) be tactful and low-key as much as possible; aggressive or antagonistic tactics will only result in defensiveness instead of cooperation (remember the advantage of good communications skills!),

4) as much as possible, keep your managers informed of your concerns and actions, both verbally and in writing,

5) keeps accurate and factual records, make sure your observations and claims are also accurate, factual and objective,

6) avoid isolation, confer with colleagues and friends 7) before going outside your organization, consult with your professional association,

8) consult a lawyer regarding potential liability and advice on the best way to proceed. One final note on this topic: one of the best ways to avoid the need for this type of action is to promote an open work atmosphere where concerns are brought forward and dealt with without "killing the messenger". As engineers, many of you may find yourselves in a position to help create and sustain this type of culture in your organizations - don't lose sight of your fundamental responsibilities.

8.3. Employee Rights and Human Rights We include some discussion of other employee's rights, even though they are not unique to engineers or professionals. They do contribute to the work environment for employee engineers and as such affect the considerations and decisions they make. Further, engineers are often in the position of employers, and as such should be at least generally cognizant of their employees’ rights. Consider how laws are changing regarding a manufacturer's liability, and the trend from the early days of the industrial revolution when the manufacturer was king, to today where they can be held liable in cases where they are not even clearly negligent. There have been similar changes in the area of employee rights. Back when companies and their resultant organizations were able to accumulate wealth and the associated economic power at a rate and magnitude way beyond the capabilities of individual workers, the employee was expected to be subservient to their employer and "follow orders" without question. This may have followed from the military background of some early industrialists, or from necessity in a tentative environment where understanding was limited and stability was uncertain at best. Although there were undoubtedly cases where workers were exploited and even abused by unscrupulous bosses, there may be a reasonable alternative explanation for this situation. Recall the relationship between economic capability and the rights a society can "afford" to grant to its members. In the early, struggling days of industry, it may not have been economically feasible to grant the employee rights and benefits most workers enjoy today (at least in the "industrialized" world). Under extreme circumstances and dismal alternatives, workers may have willingly forgone their rights in order to survive and for the greater social good of improved economic expansion. The problem may have come once industrial organizations (companies) became wealthy (often demonstrated by the personal affluence flaunted by the owners and managers) but "forgot" to grant back those “suspended rights” that they could now perhaps afford. Certainly neglect of poor or hazardous working conditions in the face of flagrant affluence by the owners helped instigate the unrest which led to the union movement - a counter force to help bring a balance between employer and employee rights. We can see a somewhat similar situation

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

today through the industrialization of "third world" countries. As a global society, we should question whether the limited rights granted to workers in those countries are an economic necessity or whether we, as consumers of many of their products, are indeed exploiting them beyond economic necessity. Society, through governments, has become involved in defining and defending employee's rights. Labour laws, safety laws and minimum wage laws can be considered declarations of some employee rights. Further, it is generally accepted that human rights as defined in such documents as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should follow a person into the workplace as much as possible. As always, there are still some rational employer considerations.

Martin and Schinzinger discuss several commonly accepted employee rights. (264-272) Employees generally have the right to pursue outside activities without undue influence or restriction by their employer. This includes political activities, social or special interest groups and even other employment pursuits. These may be reasonable limited by an employer's right to protect their own interests. Employees cannot pursue outside activities to the point of violating the duties of their job (e.g. moonlighting to the point where you're too tired to do your regular job). Neither can they pursue outside activities that create a conflict of interest. Finally, employees have no right to consistently sabotage their employers in any way, on or off the job. (During labour disputes for example, each side should recognize and respect the other's legitimate interests.)

8.3.1. Privacy and Drug Testing The right to privacy can be described as “…the right to control access to and use of information about oneself.” (Martin & Schinzinger, 267) As with other rights, this one can be limited by legitimate employer's rights. Consider a few brief examples also from Martin & Schinzinger (267-268):

1) Before being hired at a computer centre that handles large banking transactions, applicants are required to answer questions about their criminal records while subjected to a lie detector test.

2) A supervisor unlocks and searches the desk of an engineer without permission. He suspects the engineer of having leaked company plans and is looking for evidence.

3) A large manufacturer of expensive electronic devices has suffered substantial losses from employee theft. They suspect several employees are involved. Without notifying employees, hidden surveillance cameras are installed.

An employer is entitled to the information required to effectively manage their operation and look out for their interests. The debate usually arises over how far they can go. As in the case of outside interests, employers should be ready to defend their need for any information they wish to gather (i.e. the burden of proof is on the employer). Finally, employers should be considered to have the same trust relationship with their employees as professionals do with clients. Access should be restricted on a "need to know" basis. (Martin & Schinzinger, 269) Another related issue is that of drug testing in the workplace. Again, it is related to the right to privacy and a private life outside work. Are employers justified in testing for drug use or does this violate employee rights? Employee rights advocates would argue that an objective measure of job performance is all the information the employer can legitimately collect. They argue that any

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

deleterious effects of abuse will manifest themselves as inhibited job performance, which can be dealt with on that level. This is a strong argument as an employee generally "contracts" with their employer to perform certain functions. The employer's legitimate interests are tied directly to that performance. If it is substandard, the employee has a responsibility to correct it, but the employer doesn't necessarily have the right to search for the cause. Again, special circumstances may limit employee rights in this area. If inadequate performance, due to drug influence for example, can lead to a dangerous situation or safety hazard, the employer may be justified in performing on-the-job testing. (Martin & Schinzinger, 270) Another right generally granted to employees is the right to due process. Ideally this includes explicit endorsement of their rights through company policies and procedures. It also includes the right to written explanations for actions taken against an employee, and a known procedure for appeals. (Martin & Schinzinger, 271)

8.3.2. Non-Discrimination The right to non-discrimination is a more specific application of the human right to be treated fairly. Recall the potential negative effects on one’s health of not receiving fair professional recognition for one's work; being discounted on the basis of personal attributes over which one has little if any conscience control is equally demeaning. This right is again an extension of a human right that extends into the work environment. This is another right that has been evolving over time, with the objective of eliminating as much discrimination as possible. As one might expect, circumstances may limit one's right to not be discriminated against. As an example, consider the military. Historically it has been reasoned that the physical and logistic demands on military personnel justified discrimination on the basis of sex (at least for many positions). Lately, with improvements in tools and technology and positive experience in other areas, women are being accepted into all areas of the military. While this is a positive step towards equal treatment for all, it does not necessarily address the subtle discrimination that traditionally "under-represented" groups may still face. Steps taken by governments and programs adopted by businesses have had an effect on workforce demographics, in some places more than others. However, some of the measures adopted have led to related concerns, particularly about reverse-discrimination. Some would argue that reverse-discrimination is justified until the workforce demographics are close to that of the subject population in order to correct “past wrongdoing”. They might also reason that an accelerated correction is the way to reach a point of harmony between the sexes and races. Others would argue that this practice flies in the face of the very principle it tries to uphold by deliberately discriminating against some groups! Further, it is applied against individuals who had nothing directly to do with creating the situation in the first place (i.e. compensating victims by punishing the innocent! Can two wrongs make a right?) Some also feel that this type of "compensatory justice" may have a reverse effect on disadvantaged groups by sending the message that they can't make it on their own on an even playing field, and need special consideration. (Martin & Schinzinger, 280) There are compelling arguments on both sides, but it is generally agreed that discrimination should be eliminated from society and the workplace. To conclude, from a rights perspective, employees should generally expect to be treated fairly and with no discrimination (either forward or reverse), and any deviation from this objective should be adequately justified by the employer (the burden of proof lies with them, even if it can only refer to Government mandated policies).

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

8.3.3. Sexual Harassment The final topic of discussion regarding employee rights is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can be considered a form of discrimination as well as an abuse of power outside its legitimate use for the operation of a business. The most prevalent occurrences seem to be with men harassing women, but the principles and rights violated are equivalent for the case of women harassing men or even same-sex situations. Again if we look at trends, society is increasingly recognizing the right of individuals to control their own decisions regarding their sexual activities (in a general sense) and have those decisions respected by others, especially those who may have a power or authority relationship with them. The term may be applied to a variety of acts or practices that may involve “…physical or psychological attacks, coercion, abuse of authority, and a variety of unwanted provocations.” (Martin & Schinzinger, 282) Definitions also offered by Martin and Schinzinger include: "any sexual oriented practice that endangers a woman's job - that undermines her job performance and threatens her economic livelihood.”, and "the unwanted imposition of sexual requirements in the context of a relationship of unequal power." (282) It can take the form of threats of penalties, offers of rewards, assaults or annoyance. Common usage of "harass" implies repeated aggravation, but as Martin and Schinzinger point out, in this context a single flagrant episode can qualify as sexual harassment. A duty ethicist would condemn it as not meeting one's duty to respect others. Rights ethicists consider it a serious violation of the right to pursue one's self interest without undue interference. The utilitarian would point out the impact it has on one's happiness and self-fulfilment. (283) In the workplace, one should again expect they have the right to do their job without this type of interference, and certainly current laws support that right (at least in some industrialized nations). One must recognize that gender relationships in other cultures and in other parts of the world are significantly different, and may create serious moral dilemmas for both male and female engineers.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

9. International Operation & Global Issues An engineer’s life is being influenced more and more by the global marketplace in which we practice. As more and more companies expand their operations to include international work, the engineer’s professional life is bombarded with new considerations regarding the physical, cultural and political environments with which they must deal. International trade agreements and the move towards international laws governing human rights and environmental issues complicate many of the decisions one must make in both personal and professional life. Such considerations raise new moral and ethical questions that are relevant to engineers and thus deserve examination. The interest in international pursuits seems well justified. For the company, the move into less developed parts of the world provides access to inexpensive labour, new sources of natural resources and new markets for product. This usually benefits both the company involved and the home economy by becoming more globally competitive and balancing trade. (Martin and Schinzinger, 291) There are also significant benefits for the developing countries as a result of such foreign investment: new employment opportunities for citizens with better pay and skill development, transfer of new advanced technology and the array of other social benefits that follow from an improved economic capability (e.g. education, health care.). (291) Martin and Schinzinger raise several moral issues relating to foreign activities including business and social complications. (Who loses jobs at home versus who gains? What are the local tax implications? What is the long term effect on the host country of selling off resources or accepting the influence of a foreign culture?) (292) “Culture” differences often cause the most debate - a different value system, different religious beliefs and different business practices. This discussion focuses on the resulting moral and ethical considerations for corporations or individuals doing business with a foreign culture.

9.1. Cultural Concerns The difference in values is a primary source of ethical concerns. As a starting premise we acknowledge that one’s value system is related to the culture in which it was “acquired”. Since values and ethics are intimately related, we first review three perspectives on “relative values / ethics” as described by Martin and Schinzinger (292). “Ethical Relativism: Actions are morally right within a particular society when (and only because) they are approved by law, custom or other convention of that society.” This is best summarized as “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” If liberally followed, this philosophy could lead to participation in some extreme, and generally unacceptable behaviour (e.g. genocide, slavery). (292) If we accept that morally correct behaviour is based on fundamental human rights, then to ignore them simply because of a local convention would be to deny our own moral beliefs. While there are some arguments that would support acceptance of this philosophy, at least for some circumstances, its shortcomings are more evident if we apply this same philosophy to certain “sub-cultures” that exist in our own society (e.g. gangs, cults). If we consider that some of their behaviour may be unacceptable (or even illegal) in our “larger” society, then it would seem unreasonable that one could effectively change one’s value system by joining such a group. (It is more likely that one would join such a group if one’s value system already approximately matched that of the group!) To try to rationalize behaviour that did not fit with one’s own value system would certainly create a moral dilemma. If we consider the entire planet as the “global society”, then a country or area may

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

be considered analogous to the sub-culture described above – i.e. a significantly different value system than the “global” one. Again, to try to rationalize a change in ethic because of a change in venue would certainly be just as ineffective. Of course one significant difference is the legal and political jurisdiction, where a “gang” is likely subject to the same laws as the rest of its enveloping society, this is not as yet true for different countries. However, an increasingly global economy is fuelling the pressure and support for more international law. (Consider for a moment how one might define what the “global” value system actually is. As with any culture or sub-culture, it might be considered a statistical compilation of the values of all its members. This implies of course that one consider the frequency with which certain values are held and their weighting effect on the “global” result. This model also implies that there would be sub-sets in any larger group that might have a value system different enough from the global “norm” to be considered outcasts or splinter groups (recall gangs, cults).) In conclusion, “ethical relativism” as a view offers little to help guide our behaviour or resolve our moral dilemmas.

“Descriptive Relativism: As a matter of fact, value beliefs and attitudes differ from culture to culture.” This philosophy simply acknowledges that there are differences in beliefs and values between different cultures. (292) It does not imply ethical relativism, nor does it offer any guidance to resolve moral dilemmas which arise because of these differences. It is however a partial step in that recognizing differences is at least the first step in dealing effectively with them. “Moral Relationalism (or Contextualism): Moral judgments should be made in relation to factors that vary from case to case, usually making it impossible to formulate rules that are both simple and absolute. In particular, customs and laws are usually morally relevant factors that should be taken into account.” (292) This is an extension of “Descriptive Relativism” that says one should not only acknowledge that there are differences in values and beliefs, but that one should consider these in the context of each situation when making moral and ethical decisions. It does not imply that these alternate views are either right or wrong; but it does imply that there may be more than one morally acceptable view in any situation (i.e. “ethical pluralism”). (293) Because the “context” of each situation is different, it is near impossible to establish any consistently applicable “rules”. (Recall: This is reminiscent of Gilligan’s view of “post conventional” moral development in which moral decisions are arrived at by considering the context of each situation.) It recognizes that moral rules almost always have exception (e.g. lying is generally considered morally unacceptable, but there are circumstances under which, at least in this philosophy, it would be considered morally correct). In summary, it recognizes that reasonable people can have different opinions about a moral issue and still be reasonable; and that different acts can be considered morally correct when taken in the context of the situation. While pragmatic or contextual considerations in a foreign environment may justify some digression from what is considered morally acceptable practice at home, it does not automatically justify participation in a foreign culture’s practices without serious “examination of conscience” and at least some assessment of the long term effects. As a general guideline to assist in such decisions, consider the following suggestions:

• Identify the source of moral / ethical conflict – what specific practice or act is in question and how does this differ from normal (at home) practice.

• Identify any local or foreign legal implications – for example, while bribery per se is illegal in most places, there are some locales where it is tacitly condoned (at least in some

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

circumstances) as evidenced by the complete lack of any enforcement of the applicable law. Occasionally there are local laws governing a companies behaviour even in when outside the country. Make sure you are not leaving yourself or your company open to litigation on either side.

• Make sure the practice is really accepted and understood to be part of the normal process. Example: while misleading advertising is not morally acceptable, deliberate exaggeration or obviously false claims are sometimes used to make a point. The key is that it is clearly understood, and expected to be understood by most people, that a certain statement is false and is not intended to mislead. This “understanding” is also culturally dependent.

• Consider the negative effects or the reason(s) why the practice or custom is not accepted locally; assess whether or not the practice would have the same effect in the other culture. Example: falsifying accounting records is generally considered unacceptable here because it would lead to illegal avoidance of taxes (for one) and others paying more to “take up the slack”. If, however, it is considered common practice as the start of a negotiating process, then the same negative effect would likely not accrue.

• If the alternative is to not do business in the foreign location, then one may also try to balance the possible positive consequences of one’s presence in the foreign location (e.g. jobs, improved local economy) against the negative effects of the practice. This can be a very difficult assessment and decision. Even the suggestion to “do more good than harm” is of limited help as even this assessment (especially if done in-house) is, at best, subjective and possibly (probably?) biased! Another condition that may help put a bound on participation in foreign practices is to not violate any fundamental human rights. (Look to International bodies for declarations of human rights that are proposed for global acceptance.)

9.2. International Operations Some other proposed concepts or “tests” may help provide guidance or put restrictions on multinational corporations doing business with foreign countries or in foreign cultures.

One example is the “rational empathy test” proposed by Thomas Donaldson (Martin and Schinzinger, 295-296). Here he suggests that one ask: “Would citizens of the home country find the practice acceptable if their home country were in circumstances economically similar to those of the host country?”. For example, safety laws in developing nations are often less stringent than those in the “developed world”. This likely reflects the reality that people are willing to accept a higher level of risk in order to provide for their basic needs in situations where economic conditions are poor and jobs are scarce. This does not relieve the company from doing all that it can to respect human rights and provide as safe a work environment as possible under the circumstances. Donaldson also insists that companies not engage in practices that violate human rights, or they must simply leave and go elsewhere.

Richard T. De George also agrees that multinationals must not violate human rights through their foreign operations, but also requires that such operations also benefit the host country. (Martin and Schinzinger, 296-297) Again, this requires doing “more overall good than bad”, but gets more specific in that he requires:

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

i) that business dealings benefit for the countries overall economy and workers, ii) companies should respect the laws and culture of the host country provided they do not

violate basic human rights, and iii) that their dealings tend to promote just institutions, not increase unjust ones.

Of course, even these principles are difficult to apply universally. Take for example women in business. While most western societies strive for gender equality in the workplace, this may undermine local customs, religious beliefs or even laws. “Good judgment exercised in good faith, rather than abstract principles, is often the only way to address such practical dilemmas.” (297) De George promotes a contextual approach towards making decisions regarding what benefits the host country and what violates human rights. (Martin and Schinzinger, 297) For example, consider “Fair wage”. Often companies move manufacturing operations “off shore” to take advantage of lower labour rates. If they pay too little, they exploit workers; if they pay too much, they are accused of stealing workers and disrupting the local economy. De George’s guideline is to pay a “living wage” even if local companies do not, but otherwise only enough to attract competent workers. Another example, although a somewhat more complex one, is the issue of safety. Is it morally justified to move handling of hazardous materials off shore because safety laws in a host country are less costly to satisfy? As mentioned above, poorer economic circumstances usually result in a willingness on the part of workers to accept more risk. Provided other conditions are met (overall good, human rights etc.) this may be an acceptable approach to lowering costs and becoming more competitive in a global economy. However, three limiting points must be made:

i) workers have the right to “informed consent” i.e. that must be informed, in a language and in terms they understand, about the potential dangers involved,

ii) in some cases, economic desperation may lead to some clearly unacceptable choices (e.g. effectively waiving some basic human rights!) which a company should not, in good conscience, allow to take place, and

iii) as much as possible, workers should be compensated for assuming additional risk (assumed on an informed basis of course).

This last point regarding compensation raises another set of moral question of itself. How much risk should a company allow a worker to “sell”? When should additional resources be spent on improved safety (regardless of local laws) instead of compensation for risk? As a general guideline we suggest (again, providing other minimum conditions are met – living wage being paid, informed consent) that it would be difficult to morally justify more than a “reasonable” profit while employees work in conditions that would not be acceptable by international guidelines (or lacking sufficient guidance there, home regulations). A suggested rule of thumb might be to divide any resources available in lieu of excessive profits between improved safety measures and increased compensation, again considering that in some circumstances the workers’ propensity to choose more money over more safety may be irrational. The proportion of the division would be subject to the “contextual” circumstances including the company’s knowledge of what acceptable safety practices are in other locations with similar economic conditions.

9.3. Culture-Transcending Norms Harris et al consider the concept of behavioural norms that they feel represent values that are common to many cultures and should therefore be internationally applicable. (247-263) While they acknowledge the difficulties in identifying and applying universally acceptable behaviours, they do

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

offer another potential tool for the engineer to use when searching for a morally acceptable solution to inter-cultural issues. They draw these “CT norms” from the major ethical theories, international guidelines and documents, engineering codes of ethics and a basic respect for persons.

From these sources, they identify nine behaviours which they suggest should be used to guide international operations:

1. Avoid unfair exploitation. Whenever there is an imbalance of power, economic or otherwise, there is opportunity to take unfair advantage. A foreign company, for example, may be in a controlling position with respect to local workers who desperately need the jobs and will accept an unfair wake or unsafe conditions because they feel they have no other choice. It is morally unacceptable to take such unfair advantage just because you can “call the shots”.

2. Avoiding paternalism. The opposite of unfair exploitation is being too protective or paternalistic to the point that you are making all the decisions for someone else an the assumption you “know better”. While it is appropriate to carefully consider whether someone has the stability, rationale and experience to make a sound decision on their own behalf, one must also judge when it would be beneficial and developmental to inform them of the choices and solicit at least their input if not allow then to decide for themselves.

3. Avoiding bribery and gifts. This is a very common and very difficult situation for many companies. In general, the use of monetary or other gifts to acquire an unfair advantage or for extortion is definitely unacceptable. However, their use as part of customary business dealings or “grease payments” has come to be accepted as a normal part of business in some cultures and could be morally justified. Bribery is universally illegal, be sure to carefully check relevant laws in both your country and the host country and make sure the practice is acceptable before finding yourself in serious difficulty.

4. Avoid violation of human rights. There is, as yet, no universally accepted list of basic human rights that can be applied in all locales. The United Nation’s International Bill of Human Rights and related documents provide a “wish list” and excellent goal for all international operators. These should be observed as a minimum whenever possible. If this minimum doesn’t meet your personal or corporate standards, choose the “higher road” while respecting local customs and laws as much as possible.

5. Promoting the welfare of the host country. An ethically sound foreign operation should be beneficial for both parties. Ensure that your presence provides a net benefit for the host. Here again, consideration of economic circumstances and safety issues must be considered contextually, bearing in mind the limits discussed elsewhere.

6. Respect local cultural norms and laws. This guide is clearly limited by the other CT norms. It may also create apparent conflicts. Harris et al suggest that in these cases, the local norms receive priority consideration unless they seriously violate one of the other norms. Here again, a reasoned judgment is likely to be more successful than arbitrarily imposing an unfamiliar and unwelcome change to a local culture.

7. Protect the health and safety of workers and residents. This is another tenet of engineering codes of ethics that must be carried over to international operations (public

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

safety). One must consider the “appropriateness” of any technology being transferred giving due consideration to the local skill level and required training etc. and ensure that it is not creating a dangerous situation. While it is generally acceptable that working and living standards may not be equivalent to your home country, there are reasonable limits to how far one can ethically stray from sound engineering standards of practice.

8. Protect the environment. This again follows from many engineering codes of ethics. Since many developing nations have minimal environmental protection legislation in place, one must look to home standards or international bodies for guidelines to consider. Often protection of the environment is a lower priority for developing nations than economic development, and certainly some operational latitude is justifiable is the alternative is no developmental benefit for the host country at all. One cannot, obviously, ignore environmental issues to the point where it becomes a health or safety hazard for the residents or workers. When acceptable compromised are initially justified, one should at least plan for ultimately meeting internationally acceptable standard in the future.

9. Promote legitimate background institutions. This follows almost directly from CT norms 4,5 and possible 7. One cannot adequately honour human rights and bring a benefit to the residents (including safety and health) if your company is directly or indirectly supporting governments or institutions that do not apply these norms themselves. Donaldson insists that if one cannot operate without violating certain human rights, one must leave and find another place to operate. (296) Of course some practices generally considered violations of human rights may be locally accepted as customary rather than repression or harm; gender roles are one example. If one accepts that they must follow this local practice in order for the country to realize any benefits, include a plan to work respectfully with locals to improve standards in the long run.

Many times there will be conflicts between these “norms”, and they clearly can not all be met fully at the same time. When this occurs, the practitioner should consider reasonable trade-offs and strike a morally acceptable balance. Harris et al also give some additional suggestions that are intended to assist in their application:

1. Consider proportional responsibilities. Remember that although engineers may play a significant role in decisions regarding international operations, they are not professionally responsible for everything. They can legitimately limit their responsibilities to those matters over which they have some control.

2. Avoid laxness and rigorism. Strive for reasonable compromises where necessary. Ignoring all rules of behaviour or insisting on enforcing strict adherence to your version of what it right will more often than not lead to unnecessary complications.

3. How to choose between competing local and host practices. Providing they don’t obviously violate other standards or norms, the host country practices should be favoured whenever possible. This will show respect for the local people and their culture, and improve your company’s relationship with your host.

4. How to choose between competing CT norms. Conflicts can also arise between CT norms. For example: “Eliminating the pollution [of a fertilizer plant] may result in an

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

increase in the price of fertilizer and put it beyond the reach of most farmers in the country.” (263) creates a conflict between CT norms 7 and 8 above. Although Harris et al don’t offer any advice for these situations, we would suggest adopting the utilitarian approach and favouring the option that provides the most overall good. Remember that evaluating “goodness” has its own set of challenges.

9.4. Appropriate Technology Transfer Intimately related to operations in foreign countries, and related to the preceding discussion, is the topic of “technology transfer” and what constitutes “appropriate technology”, at least for use in the host country. Given that technology transfer is one of the potential advantages for host countries, even what is produced and how it is being manufactured deserves some thought in this regard.

“Technology transfer is the process of moving [a] technology to a novel setting and implementing it there.” (Martin and Schinzinger, 297-298) A novel setting is one where there is at least one factor that is critical to the success or failure of the technology that is new or significantly different from locations / circumstances where it has been implemented before. (298) Determination of what is in fact “novel” is an exercise in “imaginative forecasting” for the conscientious and competent cross-cultural “social experimenter”! Determination of what is “appropriate” also requires consideration of many factors that include the economic conditions (or desperation), the general knowledge of the local population, cultural attitudes and even political desire. Just because a technology is feasible or state of the art doesn’t mean it is appropriate in all circumstances. If local economic conditions and education levels (including general experience with similar technology) are sufficiently behind those in the source country, then state of the art technology may not be appropriate. Take for example the introduction of modern agricultural equipment (like tractors) – in a developing nation, such a product may be inappropriate because of the training and maintenance available. It may also be undesirable from an employment perspective – displacing workers with machinery may not be a politically or economical suitable option at a given point in a country’s development. Consider another example, the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal in India. Although original intentions and plans were well executed, in the end disaster resulted partially because local laws, expertise and knowledge were insufficiently developed to safely operate their methyl isocyanate plant. A long term view of “appropriateness” may have led to a different decision initially. Martin and Schinzinger capture the broader issue and difficult challenges facing engineers when considering a transfer of technology: “Appropriate technology is a generic concept that applies to all attempts to emphasize wider social factors when transferring technologies. As such, it reinforces and amplifies our view of engineering as social experimentation.” (299)

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

10. Engineers and Sustainability: Environmental Ethics There is no doubt that human presence on earth, as with other species and natural phenomenon, have had an effect on the very surroundings that have spawned and nurtured us through past millennia. The proliferation of agricultural, industrial and electronic technologies have definitely accelerated at least some of the changes being observed in our surroundings. Whether that effect has been positive or negative, natural or artificial, catastrophic or inconsequential has become a popular topic for debate. One thing that should certainly be recognized is that engineers’ responsibility for, and mastery of technology gives them a special role regarding humankind’s relationship with their environment. Whether it be analysis and assessment, correction or prevention, an engineer’s knowledge is an essential component if appropriate answers and solutions are to be found. This chapter introduces a few of the compelling questions and provides a summary of some suggested approaches that might be taken to resolve them.

10.1. Terms and Definitions To begin our discussion, we consider some of the terms which are commonly used when discussing the environment and our evolution and development.

10.1.1. Growth versus Development Herman Daly makes a distinction between growth and development as follows: “To grow means to increase in size by the addition of material or accretion. To develop means to expand or realize the potentialities of; bring gradually to a fuller, greater or better state.” (Farrell, 222) We can see that these definitions are reasonably independent; one can grow and not develop or vice versa. Daly also concludes that growth has limits while only development can be sustainable indefinitely. Farrell adds that things like “literacy, aesthetics, fulfilment in the workplace, and political freedom are important components of development”. (222) From an engineering perspective, clearly development in this sense is a better way to describe our pursuits and invest our talents.

10.1.2. Sustainable Development Humankind has come to perceive “development” as a critical success factor for our survival and wellbeing. While some may debate its necessity, most people would now agree that responsible development should, at least, look at the future effects of our current activities. The term that seems to embody this future-oriented philosophy is “sustainable development”. Herkert quotes the 1987 Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (215). Shortly thereafter, governments and organizations began using this term to describe related goals and inspire responsible behaviour for their members and constituent organizations. (Herkert, 215)

The American Society of Civil Engineers generated a more comprehensive definition in their document The Role of the Engineer in Sustainable Development which was used by Harris et al (218):

Sustainable development is a process of change in which the direction of investment, the orientation of technology, the allocation of resources, and the development and functioning of organizations [is directed] to meet present needs and aspirations without endangering the capacity of natural systems to

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

absorb the effects of human activities, and without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and aspirations.

They go on to point out several key concepts implied in this definition. First, that it is economic and technical activity that is required to meet our “needs and aspirations”. (218) Also noteworthy is inclusion of “aspiration” which perhaps acknowledges a legitimate right to go beyond our very basic needs. The United Nations also notes that this appreciation for future generations does not preclude concern for those in need today. (Farrell, 222) Secondly, Harris et al point out two constraints on this development: that the resulting activity be “absorbable” by the environment, and that future generations be able to also meet their “needs and aspirations”. (218) While acknowledging the difficulty in determining whether or not an activity has been benignly “absorbed” and the fact that there are no conditions on how difficult (i.e. expensive) in might be for future generations to meet their needs, the definition certainly suggests an outlook which is more consciously responsible than we may have had in the past. The overall objective of a sustainable society is to reach sustainability in its ecological, economic and social systems. (Herkert, 215) While each of these components may have individual goals, they can also have a significant interdependence which involves balancing potentially conflicting needs. Up to this point, engineering organizations have acknowledged a role in ecology and economics, but have generally discounted or ignored any role in the social systems aspect of sustainability. (216) This is rationalized by referring to codes of ethics that required engineers to operate within their areas of expertise and training. While we may not be social scientists, it is important that we bring our technical understanding to a common table in order to achieve solutions that address this broader concept of sustainability.

10.1.3. The Environment Defining the environment is the first step in framing a common approach to the issues surrounding its health. Earth’s environment can be thought of as the integration and interaction of all the natural systems that have any effect on the operation of any other system, including each other, or on any of the inhabitant life forms. There are two relevant considerations: the definitions of natural, and the geographical scope of the definition. What is “natural” is not as easily defined as one may think at first. Here again there are two basic views. The first includes humankind, and the effects of its growth, as an integral part of natural systems. This philosophy states that we are an inseparable part of the environment and whatever changes result from our existence are part of the natural course of events. The second is more anthropocentric in that it considers humankind as central to, but separate from, the rest of the natural environment. This philosophy starts from a base assumption that what is natural is what would happen to “natural systems” if we were not here at all to interfere (either positively or negatively). While this issue may lead to some interesting discussion, it may not have much practical significance considering the main features of “sustainability” given elsewhere. The ability to meet future needs will be important in both views. In the past, our knowledge and understanding of our environment was often limited to a small geographic area. We either didn’t understand or could not comprehend the effects of our actions on people or places beyond the world that was accessible to us. Today we understand that putting up a 100 meter stack to push waste gasses into the prevailing wind or dumping effluents into a river only keeps the local environment clean while it can mean pollution or acid rain hundreds or even

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

thousands of miles away. Our increasingly global knowledge and responsibilities mean that we must look at our actions on a global basis, crossing political and cultural boundaries. Considering this, we may think of the earth’s environment as a biosphere, a closed system with many complex and interdependent components. This offers significant challenges when seeking effective solutions to environmental issues as one must deal with a broad range of needs and aspirations as well as political and economic realities.

10.2. Anthropocentricity and Western Ethics Western culture, and the ethical philosophies associated with it, are predominantly anthropocentric (considers event in terms of human values and utility). To date, this philosophical base has formed our general attitudes toward everything else in our biosphere. Everything was valued in terms of what it meant to humans. In fact, much of our initial concern for the environment was based on this “human-centred” view; how was a changing environment going to affect the health and welfare of humans. In order to truly achieve sustainability, we may have to re-examine our views and our role and adopt a more humble position in the global arena.

10.2.1. Approaches to the Environment As mentioned above, concern for the environment was originally based on our concern for ourselves. Within this view, there are two ways in which we can view the value of the environment: health related and non-health related. We could see the environment as having a direct effect on our health, usually in a negative sense if it contains toxins or irritants. We can also view it as having instrumental value in that humans will benefit from the enjoyment of nature. (Harris et al, 234). Consistent with this anthropocentric approach is the implied, underlying assumption that the environment “belongs” to humankind and exists solely for its benefit. This does not mean that it should not be considered and protected, just that the motivation for doing so is self interest. An alternate approach is espoused by Aldo Leopold in A Sand County Almanac where he suggests that humans should view themselves as part of the environment instead of as owners of it. (233) While this may seem recent, it is akin to the philosophy held by many of the aboriginal peoples of the world for thousands of years. In this view, nature has intrinsic value and thus deserves moral consideration. How much moral consideration can become a subject of debate. When interests conflict, which entity deserves higher priority? Once again, the root of this dilemma, or the solution, may lie in our ethical roots.

The question of moral consideration also arises with the effects on non-human entities in the biosphere. In addition to a potential conflict with human interests, animal protection and preservation of species can come in conflict with protection of plants and geographical entities. (Harris et al, 231) Certainly engineering projects implemented for the benefit of humans can have a significant negative effect on habitat or species. (232)

10.2.2. Ethical Views and the Environment Utilitarianism has a strong influence on our culture and is reflected in many of our customs and laws. This ethical philosophy, with its embedded anthropocentricity, is also reflected in our traditional approach to the environment: “the most good for the most people”. Even when some of the environmental effects of development are negative for some people, utilitarians will allow the trade-off as long as there is a benefit for a greater number.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

Many of the utilitarian-based laws tend to violate or at least ignore an individuals rights and the duty to respect them. Some recent movement has been made in law and court decisions to recognize and correct the potentially inequitable “distribution of goods and harm” and preserve the individual’s right to an environment that won’t negatively affect their health. (Harris et al, 228).

10.3. Technology’s Role in Sustainability Recall the constraints our earlier definition placed on development in order for it to be classified as “sustainable”: the effects of any development must be absorbed by the environment and it must allow for the future. This raises the question “How much perturbation in its systems can the environment handle?”. While acknowledging our incomplete and inadequate understanding of nature, Farrell mentions the concept of “carrying capacity” of the biosphere as a measure of how much human activity can be safely absorbed by our ecological systems without jeopardizing the future. (226) He also notes that our political response to environmental limitations complicates a true analysis but that suitable tools can help. Beder concludes that since there has been no agreement on controlling other factors that affect the impact on the environment, the responsibility for sustainable development will rest primarily with technology. (230) She describes a functional relationship between environmental impact and population (number of people), affluence (resource use per person), and technology (impact per unit of resource used). (231) In a more familiar engineering format:

�

ImpactEnvironmental = f Population, Affluence, Technology( ) ,

or

�

Imp = Pop× Aff × Tech, where

�

Pop = number of people, Aff = resource usageperson

, Tech = environmental impactunit of resource used

The implied goal is to use this relationship to determine what the impact of a given development is, and then to ensure that the total for our chosen projects (developments) is no greater than the carrying capacity of the biosphere. Clearly technology has two opportunities to reduce environmental impact. One is to reduce the resources used per person to provide a given benefit, and the other is to reduce the impact of a given resource “transaction”. There are, however, different approaches to achieving these ends.

10.3.1. End-of-Pipe Solutions versus Clean Technologies The technical community’s first response to adverse environmental effects was to “fix” the problem at the output end. This approach applied technology to remove toxins or pollutants from the “end-of-the-pipe” without worrying about changing the upstream process. From a resource efficiency point of view, this is a losing proposition as extra resources are required to “clean up” an existing process with no real increase in the benefit to society.

A second level of “fixing” involves improving the original process to either use less resource, or cause less environmental impact. An example of success with this approach is Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) who has been able to reduce unwanted effects and improve efficiency and save money by embracing this as a management philosophy. (Harris et al, 222) This approach certainly has more potential for achieving gains in reducing environmental impact for a given benefit, but still has limitations. It is still limited by the bounds of existing paradigms concerning

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

what products and services are required to provide a given benefit for humankind, or even which way they must be provided. (Beder, 233) A third approach is to look for entirely new “appropriate” or “clean” technologies that have a more harmonious relationship with the environment in the first place. This approach eliminates the requirement to “fix” the process by seeking an environmentally compatible process to start with. While clean technologies often prove economically viable, their success in replacing older technologies has been limited, in part due to the significant investment in existing technologies and the resulting vested interests of organizations with the power to make these changes. (Beder, 234) One final suggested alternative is to re-examine our whole approach to satisfying the “needs and aspirations” of society in the first place. An example of a good step in this direction is employed by Humphreys who approaches recycling materials by asking “How can we meet the needs of this project by using these existing materials?” rather than “Can we use any of these existing materials in this project?”. A subtle but profound shift in attitude! To extend this one step further, we could ask “Is there another form of development altogether that could meet society’s needs in a more eco-friendly way?”. Of course, as engineers we are starting to step outside our bounds if we attempt to answer such complex questions in isolation. A multi-disciplinary approach, undoubtedly with public input, would be required to make such a paradigm shift palatable or even possible.

We conclude this section with a brief discussion on two issues related to the role of technology in achieving sustainability. One deals with how “clean” a technology should be, and the other deals with balancing degradation of the environment against improving it.

10.3.2. A Guide for Cleanliness A cost-benefit analysis is a common tool used to help make decisions regarding engineering projects. When one of the benefits is environmental cleanliness, the question that often occurs is “How clean must it be?”. This is similar to the questions arising in the engineer’s responsibility for safety, and whether absolute safety is attainable or even desirable (given a cost). As this decision usually, but not always, involves expending more resources to achieve a “cleaner” solution, it often involves trading off the benefits to society versus a measurable amount of environmental degradation. Harris et al refer to this utilitarian-based exercise as “Balancing Health and Wealth”. (228) While they acknowledge an engineer’s responsibility to hold the health of the public as a highest priority, they suggest that a purely utilitarian approach may not be appropriate. They go on to suggest a “degree of harm” criterion to help with such decisions. This criterion has two extremes. Where the risk to humans is significant, the technology must be “clean” enough to remove that risk, regardless of the costs. Where human health or safety is not a concern, then other cost-benefit criteria may be employed to determine a suitable level of “cleanliness”. (229) (The similarity to the engineers approach towards safety and risk is obvious.) This suggestion, while potentially useful, does not explicitly recognize the limited “carrying capacity” of the biosphere. In a totally sustainable world, we may need to commit more resources to “cleanliness” in order to achieve the development needed while staying within our “biospheric budget”. There is, however, one more way to stay “within budget” on a global basis while sacrificing some “environmental cleanliness” in a specific location.

10.3.3. Balancing the Ecological Budget Technology can not only be applied to minimize or eliminate negative effects on the environment, it

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

can also be used to reverse them. When we apply technologies to improve the carrying capacity of the environment, or reverse effects caused by non-human sources, we achieve an improvement. To stay within our “Carrying capacity” budget, we can legitimately balance degradation, for the sake of a desired benefit, against an improvement in another circumstance. As in the case of cost benefit analyses, we must carefully consider who reaps the benefits and who endures the effects of any degradation. A simple example might be the reclaiming of desert land balanced off against the loss of arable land to city development. Every urban expansion would have to be balanced, hectare for hectare, by an equal amount of reclaimed desert. Of course this assumes that a green, reclaimed desert is more ecologically desirable; an assumption that engineers, or even others in society, may not be able to assert with any certainty given our limited knowledge of nature’s delicate balances.

10.4. Approaches to Ecological Management Beder’s analyses of the reasons why appropriate technologies have not yet flourished (232-234), is perhaps explained in part by the general approaches to managing ecological issues observed by Harris et al. (221) Although they offer three descriptions of different styles, recognize that it is just a sampling of a continuum, and that a given organization may exhibit a style anywhere between.

10.4.1. Crisis Oriented Management This approach was typical, and partially excusable, in the early days of “environmental awakening”. There was no explicit focus on the environmental, no dedicated resources, and dealing with environmental issues was often seen as an imposition or distraction from the legitimate objectives of the organization. Many organizations, and perhaps with the help of government and public pressure, have evolved beyond this style.

10.4.2. Cost-Oriented Environmental Management Many organizations who started as “crisis oriented” quickly evolved into this category. They have accepted managing environmental issues and conforming to regulations and requirements as a normal part of operations. They will typically have dedicated resources and procedures in place to manage their environmental responsibilities. They will also adopt “friendly” technologies and improvements when it proves economically justifiable to do so.

10.4.3. Enlightened Environmental Management This style of management shows characteristics critical to a truly sustainable future. The commitment to conscious environmental stewardship pervades the organization from the CEO down. They are frequently pro-active, and will go beyond regulation and law to improve their environmental beneficence. They are seen as, and value being seen as, responsible corporate citizens and members of the community, and enjoy the resulting benefits of customer respect and loyalty.

10.4.4. Managing for Sustainability Farrell gives examples of “knowledge tools” that can assist us in assessing, prioritizing and generally managing the environment. (227-228) While each has its place, collectively they may offer some assistance to companies, governments and society in general for managing the issues arising from environmental and sustainability objectives.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

Cost-benefit analysis, despite its limitations, can be modified to offer a useful input to decisions. One must be sure to recognize the limitations of reducing all “goods” to a single unit of measurement. National Accounting Methods, producing indicators such as GDP, GNP etc., may also assist in analyzing developmental progress. Here again, modifications are required to more accurately tie desirable development to economic indicators. Policy tools such as guidelines and stated principles can also support a drive toward sustainability, especially if backed up programs and regulations.

Two more suggested tools are specifically related to sustainability. “Natural Capital” is an extension of National Accounting Methods that translates ecological assets into equivalent capital terms. In doing so, it is easier to compare actions and chart progress. Sustainability indicators are a specialized set of measures created to provide a numerical indication of status or progress. They typically come in sets, like the sample provided by Farrell (224):

efficient allocation – a division of resource flows among alternative uses that conforms with consumer preferences weighted by ability to pay

just distribution – a division of resource flows among different people, including future generations, that is fair or limited in inequality

sustainable scale – a physical volume and form of energy and material flowing through the environment that does not erode carrying capacity

One final management method suggested by Young and Vanderburg is the concept of “preventive engineering”. (236-241) They propose a materials life-cycle approach to design that supports a sustainable future. The concept extends the idea of recycling to cover the entire material and product life cycle. Every aspect of the life of a product from resource extraction to disposal and re-use must be considered during the design phase to ensure that the environmental impact is managed throughout. They also cite 3M’s experience with this process as a successful example.

10.5. The Engineer’s Role We conclude this chapter with some discussion of what role engineers should have in addressing environmental issues and sustainability initiatives. There has some debate over the engineer’s responsibility with respect to the environment (Herkert, 217, Harris et al, 235), but certainly where it relates to technology, we cannot escape our responsibility to bring our knowledge and experience to the table. This role is evolving, but the trend is certainly clear; we do have a role and at least an implied responsibility.

10.5.1. The Engineering Profession and Ecological Responsibility

The engineer’s responsibility for public safety and wellbeing is generally well accepted and embedded in virtually all codes of ethics. Their involvement in environmental or sustainability issues as they relate to human health and welfare is also a logical extension to this primary responsibility. The debate arises over how much further this formally stated responsibility should extend. Harris et al examine some arguments on both sides, and suggest a practical direction that can be embodied in engineer’s code of ethics (234-237) There are two main arguments for why engineers should and must go beyond their responsibility for the public and bear responsibility for protecting and improving the environment. One, they are

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

“causal agents” in both degradation and improvement, and two, their leadership role in technological projects gives them the requisite influence to effect change. The first argument is that engineers are the purveyors of technology, and that technology (or technological development) is the major cause of environmental degradation. They point out that “Engineers design dams that flood farmlands and wild rivers. They design chemical plants that pollute the air and water.” (235) Their knowledge of the effects of their work should impose a responsibility for protecting the environment beyond that required to directly protect the public. The other part of this argument is that “They also design solar energy systems that make the hydroelectric projects unnecessary and pollution-control systems that eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the air and water.” (235) In other words, they have a responsibility to fix the problems because they know how.

The second argument in favour of requiring the engineer to take responsibility relates to their position as leaders of technological projects. As leaders, it is argued, they have the power to help projects proceed or to have them cancelled. If engineers show a concern about the environment in this capacity, others will necessarily follow.

The first argument against a compulsory extended role for engineers in the environmental arena is based on their “area of expertise”. Almost all codes of ethics require that engineers “offer services, advise on or undertake professional assignments only in areas of their competence...” (EGP Act, 38). This admonition, according to some, prevents an engineer from taking a pro-active role in environmental issues and their resolution. They claim that most issues arise in the biological arena and that engineers, generally at least, have insufficient knowledge in this area. This can also be extended to the social sciences as the social realm is considered one of the central components of a comprehensive sustainability framework. (Herkert, 215)

The fact that there are differences of opinion even among engineers may cause internal conflicts and create additional problems for engineering societies and engineering managers. This second argument also raises concerns over weakening an already limited adherence to codes if additional controversy is introduced into the engineer’s responsibilities or codes of ethics.

Finally, requiring engineers to protect the environment may cause moral conflicts for individual engineers. As stated above, there are still areas of controversy regarding the environment, and an individual engineer has both a personal right to a dissenting opinion, as well as a professional right to “conscientiously refuse” or participate on moral grounds.

In Canada, the engineering profession can look to Engineers Canda (formerly the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers) for some guidance. Guideline on the Environment and Sustainability for all Professional Engineers supports many of the suggestions voiced elsewhere in this chapter. They begin by defining sustainability in part as “…an appropriate balance between a viable economy, protection of the environment and social wellbeing” (5), which captures the main elements listed by Herkert (215). They then go on to describe four key tenets regarding an engineer’s role: education, awareness and competence; integration and protection of the environment; cooperation and compliance; and leadership and responsibility (5-10).

The first tenet reminds engineers to consider their scope of practice and ensure that they are operating in their area of competence. Rather than discouraging involvement in environmental issues, the CCPE suggests seeking interdisciplinary advice and consultation. They also suggest that

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

engineers acquire knowledge about current accepted practices and technologies through professional development. The next tenet, integration and protection of the environment, states that we must “…include an evaluation of its impact on the environment and of its sustainability” for all our works. The third commands cooperation with authorities attempting to develop and administer environmental regulations and reminds engineers that they must create compliant designs. They finish by emphasizing that, because of their expertise and involvement with technology, engineers have “… an obligation to take a leadership role in environmental issues…” (9) and to accept a role in multi-disciplinary teams.

10.5.2. Codes of Ethics – Two Proposals While noting that there is frequently a stated requirement for engineers to consider and even safeguard the environment, Herkert implies that there is no compelling direction from engineering organizations regarding sustainability beyond “...balance[ing] environmental quality and economic growth.” (216) Harris et al also examine the question of an engineers responsibilities toward the environment as stated in their various codes of ethics or policy statements (216-218), and conclude that, with a few exceptions, there is generally no support or clear direction to care for the environment beyond its effect on humankind (i.e. the public). They go one to make “Two Modest Proposals” concerning codes of ethics that they feel would move the engineering community towards a sustainability commitment while accommodating the current issues discussed above. (237-240). The first proposal states:

1. Although engineers should be required to hold paramount human health in the performance of their engineering work (including health issues that are environmentally related), they should not be required as professionals (that is, required by the codes) to inject non-health-related environmental concerns into their engineering work.

This is designed to accommodate the argument related to scope of practice, and to avoid creating conflicts for societies or individual engineers. Perhaps what is not stated here could be more explicit while still accommodating these concerns. If health and welfare concerns can be positively included in codes, then it is really only an issue of timeframe whether we require engineers to develop sustainable solutions. It is generally accepted that “irresponsible development” will eventually create problems for humankind, so it is not unreasonable to explicitly require engineers to at least consider future impacts of their work. While this may require consultation with other disciplines, it should not require operating outside one’s expertise. Besides, many engineers are acquiring or developing the required expertise to make professional environmental assessments; and obvious trend towards assuming a logical responsibility to at least contribute to a sustainable future. The second proposal focuses on the engineer’s right to “organizational disobedience” whether on personal grounds or an interpretation of professional obligations. This is justified mainly on the basis of various rights of engineers, discussed elsewhere, including the professional right of conscientious refusal. Again, the proposal recognizes current controversy and potential conflicts by suggesting:

Where organizational constraints permit, engineers shall not be required to participate in projects that violate their professional obligations as determined by the codes, their professional obligations as determined by their individual interpretations of professional responsibility, or personal beliefs. Engineers shall also have the right to voice responsible objections to engineering projects that they

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

believe are wrong, without fear of reprisal. Engineers shall have the right to support programs and causes of their own choosing outside the workplace.

This supports Harris et al’s earlier argument that engineers can, and probably should, exploit their leadership role in technical projects to effect positive change. (235) It does this, basically, by re-stating rights which should already exist. Perhaps a more positive statement requiring engineers to “show professional leadership by using their technological expertise to guide development in a sustainable direction” would, while general, be more effective in defining a direction and demonstrating a willingness on the part of the engineering community to accept our evolving professional roles as technologists.

10.5.3. Laws and Regulations As with safety issues, the engineer must also give due consideration to applicable laws and regulations regarding the environment. And as in the case of safety, the engineer should keep in mind two important characteristics about these laws and regulations: they should be considered a minimum, and they are evolving. Recall that laws and regulations are generally society’s declaration of what is considered minimum acceptable behaviour. While regulations and standards are often developed with the best current information and intended to provide a sufficient level of protection, they are also often limited by the utilitarian compromises necessitated by the state of knowledge and technology available at the time. As Harris et al suggest (229), where human health and safety are not an immediate issue, economic factors have a legitimate role to play in trading off the benefits of development for humankind versus environmental degradation. This utilitarian-based philosophy is undoubtedly reflected in many of our current regulations. However, as our technological and economic capabilities improve, the initial assumptions about what society could afford may no longer be valid. In many cases the regulations may lag our current capabilities, and the engineer should again employ “imaginative forecasting” and “autonomous forethought” to help decide what is ethically acceptable. Remember that “accepted engineering practice” is also a requisite standard for engineering works. In addition to our increasing capability to protect the environment, our understanding of how to do it and our will to do it are also evolving. As scientists and engineers gain a better understanding of the complex interaction of biotic systems, we gain the knowledge necessary to assess the effects of developments and to limit or reverse any degradation. As a society, we also gain a better understanding of what “sustainability” really entails in an engineering sense. Another effect of our increasing understanding is a greater public consciousness of environmental issues, and as a result a stronger social will to strive for long term sustainability. This increasingly apparent social trend should be anticipated by the engineering community and reflected in our leadership and practices. Along with a growing public concern is a suite of laws to address a number of public issues and concerns. Environmental laws and regulations are relatively new compared to common or criminal law which have evolved over many decades if not centuries. As a minimum, engineers should be informed and current about any legislation which could potentially affect their practice. In Canada, Environment Canada is a focal point for legislative development and administration regarding the environment. One of the key acts providing an operating framework is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999) which is described as follows: (Environment Canada)

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

The goal of the renewed Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention and to protect the environment, human life and health from the risks associated with toxic substances. CEPA also recognises the contribution of pollution prevention and the management and control of toxic substances and hazardous waste to reducing threats to Canada's ecosystems and biological diversity. It acknowledges for the first time the need to virtually eliminate the most persistent toxic substances that remain the environment for extended periods of time before breaking down and bioaccumulative toxic substances that accumulate within living organisms. Health Canada works in partnership with Environment Canada to assess potentially toxic substances and to develop regulations to control toxic substances.

Environment Canada also coordinates and cooperates with Provincial and international entities to accomplish its goals. A variety of other legislation serves to either deter polluters or inspire positive change. For example, the Canada Water Act (1985) allows for conviction and fines for those contravening the act. The Alternative Fuels Act (1995) on the other hand, attempts to set an inspirational example by requiring the Government to switch to alternative fuels when “…cost effective and operationally feasible to do so,…”, but makes no provisions to force anyone else to follow suit. These are all relatively new, and, as suggested, evolving. The diligent engineers must, as a minimum, consider a periodic review of such legislation an essential part of keeping their knowledge current.

10.5.4. Design Approaches Several of the discussions in this chapter have implied a required change in attitude or approach to traditional engineering practice in order to steer technological development in a sustainable direction. Since creative design is one of the hallmarks of the engineer, this section will review two suggestions for modifying our traditional approach that might serve this purpose. Although neither of these concepts are a significant departure from the creative processes now used by engineers, it is hoped that this perspective will prove particularly applicable to sustainability challenges. The first approach is called “clean design”, and is a combination of “appropriate technology” as discussed by Beder (233), and the “materials life cycle” approach discussed by Young and Venderburg (236-241). The concept involves i) considering the environmental implications of all the phases and components of a particular development (project, product or service), and ii) starting with the objective of making the overall project at least environmentally ‘neutral’. The first element means we should broaden our analyses to consider the environmental impacts of everything involved in a product as much as possible: the energy required for resource extraction and transportation, where that energy comes from, the effect of depleting a resource, possible future substitutes or sources for that resource, what will happen to the product when it is disposed (if applicable), any side effects or waste etc. The concept of appropriate technology is basically the shift in focus from “preventing” to “fixing” - finding a process that doesn’t produce toxins versus removing them from the effluent before discharge into a waterway, or finding alternate ways to illuminate buildings and streets versus building another power plant. Also, probably with multi-disciplinary involvement, we should consider the social effects as well. Of course, finding solutions that are ‘environmentally neutral’ in terms of degradation may require “thinking outside the [existing paradigm] box”. A complementary idea known as “reverse abstraction design” is based roughly on S. I. Hayakawa’s concept of an “abstraction ladder” in relation to language introduced in Language in Thought and Action. (Ch. 9) (Note: While Hayakawa considers ‘more abstract’ as ‘more general’, we have adopted the more technical definition where ‘reverse abstraction’ is interpreted as ‘more general’.)

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

While a traditional engineering design approach asks questions to define requirements or needs in a very specific, technical way, reverse abstraction “backs up” by asking “Why is this needed?” and attempts to find a sustainable solution at each level. For example, take the requirement to expand or construct a parking lot over what is currently a wetland that provides a habitat for wildlife. A first attempt might be to try to minimize the space required to leave as much of the wetland as possible. But if we ask “Why do we need a parking lot?”, we start a new line of thinking. The answer might be “…so people who work here have a place to park their vehicles.” The problem is now one of transportation instead of parking and other more sustainable solutions may be available. For instance, improving public transportation or providing a bicycle path. If we “back up” another step on the ladder, we could ask “Why do they [have to] work here?”. Options like tele-commuting or other work-at-home or schedule provisions can be considered. Of course it is clear in even this simple example that once we ‘leave the parking lot’, we require different types of expertise. If we start considering telecommuting, we may need communications technology and social scientists to assess the impact on the organization’s work environment and on the community. The objective of this exercise would be to create a more environmentally acceptable way to satisfy the basic human need targeted by this project. It is possible that it may be available a very specific, less abstract level, or that it may not be available at even a very highly abstract level; the key point is that sustainability is one of the initial design requirements. These suggestions bring to light the new challenges and adaptation that will be required to engineer sustainable solutions for the future. It should also be clear that 1) the engineer must be involved, sharing their technological expertise, and 2) that they cannot resolve such issues alone. The engineer for the future must be a willing and proactive part of a multi-disciplinary team that works with, and within, the rest of society to help ensure that future generations in all countries enjoy the benefits that harnessing technology can produce.

GE449 Notes 2001 - 2006

Denard Lynch of 66

11. Works Cited "What Happens if a Student is Caught Cheating?" Academic Honesty. University of Saskatchewan. 15 January 2006.

<http://www.usask.ca/honesty/ >

"What is Academic Honesty?" Academic Honesty. University of Saskatchewan. 15 January 2006. <http://www.usask.ca/honesty/ >

“Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act” (EGP Act), Chapter E-9.3 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan (with amendments), 1996, 1997, 2000

“Environmental Acts and Regulations”, Environment Canada, March 24, 2006, http://www.ec.gc.ca/EnviroRegs/ENG/Default.cfm

“Guideline on the Environment and Sustainability for all Professional Engineers”, Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (CCPE), March 24, 2006, http://www.ccpe.ca/e/guide_guidelines.cfm

Andrews, Gordon C., J. Dwight Applevich, Roydon A. Fraser and Herbert C. Ratz, “Introduction to Professional Engineering in Canada”, Prentice Hall, Toronto, 2003

Beder, Sharon, “The Role of Technology in Sustainable Development”, reprinted from IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 14-19, Winter 1994/1995 as included in Herkert, Joseph R., “Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Engineering – Selected Readings”, Chapter 7, IEEE Press, 2000

Daly, Herman, as quoted in Herkert, Joseph R., “Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Engineering – Selected Readings”, Chapter 7, IEEE Press, 2000

Dictionary.com. January 15, 2006. <http://dictionary.reference.com/> Dictionary Search: ethics, morals

Donaldson, Thomas, “The Ethics of International Business” as referenced in Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger. “Ethics in Engineering”, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996

Farrell, Alex, “Sustainability and the Design of Knowledge Tools”, reprinted from IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 11-20, Winter 1996/1997 as included in Herkert, Joseph R., “Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Engineering – Selected Readings”, Chapter 7, IEEE Press, 2000

Fledderman, Charles B. “Engineering Ethics”, Second Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2004

Harris, Charles E. Jr., Michael S. Pritchard, and Michael J. Rabins, “Engineering Ethics – Concepts & Cases”, Third Edition, Thompson Wadsworth, 2005

Hayakawa, S. I. and Alan R. Hayakawa, “Language in Thought and Action – Fifth Edition”, Heinle, 1989

Herkert, Joseph R., “Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Engineering – Selected Readings”, IEEE Press, 2000

Humphries, Gerry, Presentation to Second Annual Footprint Symposium, U of S, Feb 4, 2006

Leopold, Aldo, “A Sand County Almanac”, as quoted in Harris, Charles E. Jr., Michael S. Pritchard, and Michael J. Rabins, “Engineering Ethics – Concepts & Cases”, Third Edition, Thompson Wadsworth, 2005

Lowrance, William W., as quoted in Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger. “Ethics in Engineering”, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996

Lynch, Denard J. “The Role of Trust in Defining Professionalism”

Martin, Mike W. and Roland Schinzinger. “Ethics in Engineering”, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996

Young, Steven B. and Willem H. Vanderburg, “A Materials Life Cycle Framework for Preventive Engineering”, reprinted from IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 26-31, Fall 1992 as included in Herkert, Joseph R., “Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Engineering – Selected Readings”, Chapter 7, IEEE Press, 2000

engineering in society - engr · engineering in society denard lynch, ... engineers as responsible...

Documents