Prof.dr.halit hami oz enginering ethics-course-unit-07

Engineering ethics in practice:
a guide for engineers
Prof.Dr.Halit Hami ÖZ
Kafkas University
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
Head, Department of Computer Engineering
Kars, Turkey, 36100
hamioz@yahoo.com

I used the Engineering ethics in practice: a guide for engineers book
written by The Royal Academy of Engineering for teaching as well as making the ppt
presentations about the Engineering Ethics course
Prof.Dr.Halit Hami ÖZ
Prof.Dr.Halit Hami OZ - Engineering Ethics
Course
2

4.2 Minimising and justifying adverse
effects
• Professional engineers should “minimise and justify any adverse effect
on society or on the natural environment for their own and succeeding
generations”
• Scenario
• Jean Smith is a self-employed engineering consultant. Jean has recently
acquired a contract from Construction Towers to produce an
environmental impact statement for a project that they have developed.
The project is to construct a tunnel beneath a river which divides two
halves of a major city. Construction Towers has sold the idea to the city
authorities on the basis that a tunnel will relieve significant traffic
congestion currently being experienced on one of the main road bridges
across the river. Final approval for the project, however, will depend on
the results of the environmental impact statement.
Course
3

4.2 Minimising and justifying adverse
effects
• Jean is aware that she is being employed by Construction Towers,
and as such has a responsibility to provide a satisfactory service to
her client.
• Having had a number of informal conversations with members of
the client’s management team she knows that their expectation is
that the report will find no significantly negative environmental
impacts associated with the project.
• She takes this to be a tacit instruction to ensure that the report
meets this expectation; furthermore, she knows that such tailoring
of reports is common practice amongst her competitors.
Course
4

4.2 Minimising and justifying adverse effects
• One way that Jean could ensure the results of the report meet
Construction Towers’s expectation is to be selective about the date which
is used.
• She knows that there are a number of different ways to construct such a
report and a number of different methodologies that could be followed.
• Unless there are large and obvious environmental issues with the project
she believes that she could make the report supportive of the project
without committing outright deception.
• Such results could be achieved, for example, by careful selection of the
impacts that will be considered significant, the methods of collecting data,
the way the data is analysed, and methods of forecasting future effects.
Course
5

• While she does not yet know the outcome of
the investigations, Jean has some reasons for
thinking that the environmental impact of the
project will not be negligible: the proposed
entrance to the tunnel is close to a rare
grassland habitat, and she has seen evidence
from similar projects that suggests the overall
effect is likely to be an increase in total traffic
and hence an increase in both localised and
more widespread pollution.
Course
6

• As a further consideration, if Jean report is not
supportive of the project she thinks it unlikely
that she will get any more work from
Construction Towers and also that other
clients that she works with will be less likely to
employ her in the future.
Course
7

Dilemma
• You are Jean Smith, a self-employed engineering consultant. You have
been employed to produce an environmental impact statement for a
new road tunnel on behalf of the construction company proposing the
tunnel.
• It has been made clear to you that the expectation of your client is that
the statement will not find significant environmental problems with the
project.
• However, you are concerned that if you produce a report that meets
these expectations, it will not fully represent the adverse effects of the
project and could lead to the project proceeding even though its benefits
do not outweigh the environmental damage it will cause.
• How should you go about completing the environmental impact
statement?
Course
8

What should you do?
• You could proceed with the intention of satisfying your
client’s request
• – if at first the report is too critical of the project you will
adapt the methodology used to make it more favourable. If
this does not work you will alter the data you have
collected to fit the conclusions.
• You could conduct the report, adapting the methodology
within limits in order to meet the expectations of
Construction Towers, but not going so far as using false
data or deliberately misleading techniques.
Course
9

Discussion
• If you decide before you start that the environmental
impact statement will be favourable to the proposed tunnel
it is likely that you will have to ignore some of the adverse
environmental effects that you could report.
• The approval process, which is meant to weigh proposed
benefits against expected costs, will then not be able to
take these effects into account.
• If the tunnel is approved, it may well be that some of these
negative effects are not compensated for by the benefits it
provides; at the very least we will not know whether they
are outweighed or not.
Course
10

Discussion
• Your actions will have prevented the minimisation or
justification of any effects on the natural environment,
in contravention of the statement of ethical principles.
• Therefore, option 1 is not an ethically acceptable
course of action. Perhaps, then, the second option
would be a good compromise. By adapting the
methodology of the report to the situation that you
find you could do your best to satisfy your client’s
expectations while at the same time not using false
data or any approach that falls outside the bounds of
acceptable methodology.
Course
11

Discussion
• However, you would perhaps still be left asking yourself questions.
• How can you determine what these bounds of acceptable
methodology are?
• It is true that such reports are typically constructed in different
ways, but at what point does an acceptable difference in
methodology become manipulation of the data and the process of
the report?
• You may conclude that any change in methodology that is
introduced with the express purpose of delivering a particular result
may constitute unacceptable manipulation.
Course
12

Discussion
• If this is your conclusion, then perhaps you will decide
to set out your methodology before you start collecting
data, and then report your findings whether or not
they are favourable to the project or not.
• By trying to construct your report based on accepted
best practice, you would be able to fulfil your
responsibility to “minimise and justify any adverse
effect on society or on the natural environment”.
• But how do you determine what best practice would
require?
Course
13

Discussion
• Furthermore, you know that if your report is unfavourable to the
project there is a strong possibility that you will both lose a valuable
client and also acquire a reputation in the industry which makes it
harder for you to get future work.
• Construction Towers might even get another consultant to produce
a report that is more favourable to the tunnel.
• At the very least, your actions are unlikely to have a long term
effect on the way that environmental impacts are taken into
account in such cases, since you are aware that many of your
competitors are at least willing to tailor the way they produce such
reports to the requirements of their clients.
Course
14

Discussion
• Ideally, you could change the way that such reports are
typically produced so that it would be accepted by all
parties that the results were entirely independent.
• Perhaps this could be done by introducing a methodology
that was certified as an industry standard.
• But how would you do this, particularly when so many
vested interests are at stake?
• And how should you act in the meantime given that your
business depends on keeping your clients happy?
Course
15

Discussion
• Legally, you must be very careful that your report does not use false data or
parameters or produce a false or misleading result; otherwise you could be
committing fraud.
• It can be fraud not only if you knowingly or recklessly include false data or
parameters, but also if you knowingly or recklessly exclude data or parameters
which could lead to a different conclusion.
• You need to bear in mind that in many cases reports are not only being received by
your clients, but also by other interested parties, such as the government, the
public, or the court.
• They will often be expecting you to be acting impartially and as an expert.
• Fraud can result in criminal conviction and fines.
Course
16

Summary
• In this case, the best outcome would be for the environmental impact statement
to be completed according to a single methodology that has been agreed by all
interested parties.
• This would seem to be the best way of discovering adverse effects of the project
and investigating if they were justified.
• Given that no such a methodology exists, it seems hard for you to bring this result
about.
• If you try to use what you believe to be the best candidate for an industry standard
methodology you risk losing your business if the results are not favourable to your
client.
• You could attempt to get such a methodology universally recognised, but how
would you do this given the vested interests involved?
Course
17

Other ethical considerations involved in this case
• As well as respect for life, law and the public good
this case involves considerations of accuracy and
rigour, although it might be unclear how to distinguish
picking an appropriate methodology for a client from
acting with unacceptable bias.
• Honesty and integrity will come into play with a
requirement to reject improper influence, and so will
responsible leadership, especially in its requirement
for objectivity and truthfulness [link to 5.3].
Course
18

4.3 Respecting limited resources
• Professional engineers should “take due account of the limited
availability of natural and human resources”
• Scenario
• BFG Ltd have been contracted by a local authority to undertake restoration
work on Russell House, a listed building in England. Russell House is an
attractive specialist children’s home well-loved by staff and children who,
for the duration of the restoration work, have had to be relocated to
rather unsatisfactory temporary accommodation. As it is a listed building,
materials that need to be replaced must be replaced like-with-like. Most
of the timber in the house is sapele hardwood sourced from a single
country. Of course, where possible, BFG will retain as much of the original
timber as possible. But, as part of the refurbishment the timber will have
to be taken out, to get to cables for example, and then put back. As a
result of this, some of the timber is likely to break and will need to be
replaced like-with-like.
Course
19

• At the same time, however, there are a number of requirements to use
sustainable timber.
• As the restoration is government-funded, BFG are required to comply with
the government’s timber procurement policy which states that contractors
should actively seek to buy timber from legal and sustainable sources.
• Government contracts are not awarded if contractors cannot guarantee
that their timber is legal and, wherever possible, contracts are awarded to
those companies who provide timber which is sustainable also.
• However, many environmental groups argue that these requirements are
too lax, and should be more stringent. In particular, the reliability of some
of the regulating bodies has been questioned, and the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) is generally considered to be the most reliable.
Course
20

• Whilst BFG was awarded the contract for Russell House based on
their tender to use sustainable timber, there are no further
regulations concerning any particular requirements.
• The government policy does not stipulate, for example, that FSC
timber must be used.
• The local authority has stated, however, that one of the reasons for
choosing BFG over other companies was their reputation for having
commendable environmental policies.
• BFG themselves have a policy of only using timber certified as
sustainable by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
Course
21

• The company have tried to find a supplier of sapele
hardwood sourced from the same country as the
original, that was certified as sustainable by the FSC.
• Unfortunately, this has not been possible and they
have found instead a supplier elsewhere in the EU who
could provide such wood that was certified as
sustainable by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).
• There is also a UK supplier who could provide sapele
certified by the FSC, but sourced from a different
country.
Course
22

• The staff and management of the children’s
home have been bringing pressure to bear to
complete the project quickly.
• This is because of the detriment to the welfare
of the children from the less suitable
temporary accommodation
Course
23

Dilemma
• You need to decide whether to go with the
supplier who is able to provide SFI-certified
wood from the same country as the original
wood, or the UK supplier, who is able to provide
FSC-certified wood sourced elsewhere.
• This dilemma involves deciding between two
important considerations: taking account of
limited natural resources and carefully
preserving our collective heritage.
Course
24

What should you do?
• You could go with the supplier who is able to
provide SFI-certified wood from the same
country as the original wood.
• You could go with the UK supplier, who is able
to provide FSC-certified wood sourced from a
different country.
Course
25

Discussion
• You may think the supplier of wood from the original country
presents the most ethically attractive option.
• Their wood is certified as sustainable, and BFG are not to blame if it
turns out not to be.
• As long as the certificate is there, BFG have done their duty.
• Although not using FSC timber goes against BFG’s usual policy, this
is justified in this instance to fulfil the like-with-like condition.
• The wood is like-with-like and this is important to preserve the
heritage of the building - more important than having to consider
the mere possibility that the wood might not be sustainable.
Course
26

Discussion
• However, there are good reasons for thinking that the UK supplier presents a
better option.
• There is strong reason to suspect that the wood supplied by the other supplier
may not come from sustainable sources - the SFI is said not to be as reliable as the
FSC and this is probably why BFG have a policy of only using FSC certified timber.
• The like-with-like condition may not be so stringent and replacing any broken
timber with wood of the same species is probably sufficient.
• Furthermore, the woods are very similar in appearance and properties, and so it is
unlikely anyone will notice.
• Even if the colour of the new timber is slightly different, this may improve with
age, and having wood panelling that does not match is not as important as saving
endangered habitats
Course
27

Summary
• There are two core considerations in this case: the need to
preserve the heritage of the building and the need to be sensitive
to the natural resources that you use, in particular ensuring that
they come from sustainable sources.
• In order to balance these two considerations you need to use your
judgment to determine exactly what each requires in this case.
• For example, you may decide that SFI certification is not sufficient
to make it acceptable to use that wood, and that wood sourced
from a different country, but of the appropriate kind is sufficient to
preserve the building’s heritage.
• If this were the case, then using wood from the UK supplier is
clearly the best option.
Course
28

• Other considerations that relate to respect for
life, law and the public good will also be relevant
here, in particular the need to act honourably,
responsibly and lawfully and uphold the
reputation, standing and dignity of the
profession.
• In addition, this case also calls for responsible
leadership in being aware of the issues your
actions raise for society and the how these bear
on the aspirations and concerns of others
Course
29

4.4 Health and safety
• Professional engineers should “hold paramount the
health and safety of others”
• Scenario
• Kudochem is a multinational chemical company
producing chemicals for the agricultural industry.
Responsibility for engineering issues at the 11
Kudochem chemical plants in Europe, primarily in the
UK, Germany and the Czech Republic lies with
Kudochem’s European Regional Engineering Director,
Sally Proctor.
Course
30

• In the early hours of one morning, Sally receives a
telephone call informing her that there has been
a serious explosion at one of the plants.
• There have been some injuries, and damage has
been done to property several hundred metres
from the plant, but there have been no fatalities.
• The scale of the damage is huge, and the main
site of the chemical plant is almost completely
destroyed.
Course
31

• In accordance with company policy, an inquiry team is set up,
involving company employees as well as independent consultants.
• After several weeks, the team discovers two possible causes, both
relating to a new ammonia production technique for fertiliser,
which has recently been introduced in all of Kudochem’s plants.
• They are unable to determine which of these two possible causes
are responsible. Given the presence of the flawed procedure in all
of Kudochem’s plants, it is imperative that the ultimate cause of the
explosion is identified, so that urgent steps can be taken to
safeguard against similar accidents at other sites.
Course
32

• The inquiry team is very concerned at their inability to
determine the cause of the accident.
• Without this knowledge, it will be impossible to
satisfactorily modify the plants in order to prevent
future explosions of this kind.
• They make a radical recommendation: to call a meeting
with several competitor companies who are also using
the new procedure in their fertilizer plants, in order to
share experiences and research findings.
Course
33

• This would be a significant departure from standard practice, and
some senior colleagues with commercial responsibilities have
reservations.
• To call the meeting would entail releasing information about the
safety lapse, as well as discussing sensitive commercial information
with business rivals.
• However, it may be the case that other engineers in other
companies have encountered problems with the new method for
producing ammonia, and could offer help in isolating the problem.
• Whilst such a course of action may be unusual in this case there are
industries where safety critical information is routinely shared
amongst competitors
Course
34

Dilemma
• You are the European Regional Engineering Director for a
multinational chemical company.
• After an explosion at a chemical plant, you have responsibility for
preventing similar accidents at 10 other sites.
• The inquiry team has been unable to identify the cause with
complete accuracy, and they have recommended that you initiate
discussions with competitor companies to pool knowledge.
• This would be unconventional, and would entail significant
commercial risk.
Course
35

What should you do?
• You could take the advice of the inquiry team, and invite
engineers from other chemical companies who are using a
similar process to produce ammonia, to come and discuss
the accident.
• You could persevere with the safety inquiry in-house, hire
more consultants and attempt to ascertain the precise
cause of the accident without involving other companies.
• You could consider the entire process as too risky, and
reconfigure your chemical plants to utilise a different
method of ammonia production, perhaps reverting to the
older established method.
Course
36

Discussion
• In this scenario, the situation could be seen as one in
which there is a conflict of interests and duties, such
that you are required to balance these conflicting
concerns.
• On the one hand you need to ensure the safety of
employees and local residents, and on the other hand
you need to maintain the security of commercially
sensitive material.
• In addition, you need to balance the risks with the
financial costs of possible remedies
Course
37

Discussion
• The Statement of Ethical Principles states that
you must “hold paramount the health and safety
of others.”
• At the same time, though, you need to take into
consideration any other obligations you may have
– including the duty to keep sensitive material
secure, and to protect people’s jobs by protecting
the commercial interests of the company.
Course
38

Discussion
• Of course, if a company is acting illegally or
irresponsibly, you may have a duty to ‘blow the
whistle’, and this may defeat any obligation to
keep sensitive information secret.
• However, in this case, there is no indication that
the company was acting irresponsibly. As a result,
while it may be the case that you have an
obligation to protect the safety of others, you
have other duties too.
Course
39

Discussion
• As such, you could consider the commercial risks of sharing
information with your competitors to be too significant.
• Even if this is not your first response, you could be persuaded by
commercial managers of the company that this is true.
• However, it is not clear that these considerations can outweigh the
safety concerns.
• The principle states that you should hold paramount the health and
safety of others. The same procedures are being used in all of
Kudochem’s plants and, given that the cause hasn’t been identified,
you need to take seriously the possibility that there could be
another explosion.
Course
40

Discussion
• Therefore, whichever option you choose, you will need
to ensure that you take steps to ensure that there isn’t
a similar accident in one of the other plants.
• Therefore, if you decide to keep the enquiry in house
and just hire more consultants, whether or not this is
acceptable may depend on what other steps you take
to prevent accidents at the other plants.
• If no steps are taken, this option would appear to be
ruled out by the principle we are considering.
Course
41

Discussion
• Alternatively, you may decide that a remedy will
not be found in-house, and that it is not suitable
to share information with competitors, and that it
is preferable to take the drastic step of replacing
the entire process rather than run the risks
associated with the other options.
• This solution at least has the benefit of being
associated with predictable costs, timescales and
safety levels.
Course
42

Discussion
• Finally, it may seem like pooling safety
information with other companies is the best way
of ensuring the safety of the chemical plants, and
of holding “paramount the health and safety of
others”.
• Not only will you be able to ascertain the cause of
the accident and modify your own plants, but
your competitors may be able to avoid similar
accidents.
Course
43

Discussion
• This last point should not be understated.
• The principle is not just to avoid being the direct cause of harm, but to
hold paramount the health and safety of others.
• As such, if you are able to act in a way that helps other companies to make
their plants safer, you should do so.
• Of course, it is not your main responsibility, and of course your
competitors have the primary responsibility of ensuring that their plants
are safe.
• But if there might be problems with their plants, of which they are not
aware and about which you could warn them, this does seem to be a
further reason in favour of sharing information.
Course
44

Discussion
• Furthermore, the practice of sharing information in this manner has
precedents in other commercial areas.
• For example, following the Piper Alpha disaster in the North Sea,
offshore oil and gas companies now routinely share safety related
information.
• This may be true, but it is important that in extreme situations such
as this you make a thoughtful decision, and reflect on a range of
considerations.
• The safety of employees and residents should take priority, but how
this is achieved and how other considerations are compromised will
require reflection and careful consideration.
Course
45

Summary
• In this case, there does seem to be good reason to share safety
information, if at all possible.
• Of course, where possible this should be done in a way that gives
appropriate weight to one’s other duties, regarding sensitive
information, for example.
• Ultimately, however, it should be recognised that holding health
and safety paramount doesn’t just mean ensuring that you are not
directly responsible for harms to the public, but that you also have
some responsibility to help others improve their health and safety,
for example by warning them of dangers they may not be aware of.
Course
46

• Another consideration that is central to this case is the
principle of upholding the reputation of engineering.
• If engineers were perceived to be taking unacceptable
risks because they were putting economic
considerations and competition before health and
safety, this could be very damaging to the engineering
profession.
• On the contrary, the sort of co-operation considered in
this case might well enhance the profession’s
reputation.
Course
47

Wider applications
• One of the characteristics of engineering
decisions is that they can affect the health and
safety of very large number of people.
• This means that the general public expects
engineers to consider the ways in which their
activities might put people in danger, and to
remove or mitigate those dangers.
Course
48

Wider applications
• It is easy to say that the health and safety of
employees and the public should take priority,
but issues arise in identifying an appropriate
level of safety. Engineering activities are rarely
100% safe, and what matters is whether an
activity is “safe enough”, where this is down to
the judgement of individuals, society,
politicians, scientists or lawyers.
Course
49

Wider applications
• This issue crops up most often in engineering in the form of
managing a balance between safety and financial cost. How
much should you spend in order to avoid death or injury to
a member of the public? This decision can depend on many
factors, and different answers are given in different areas;
rail transport and car transport, for instance. Many aspects
of this kind of question are settled by legislation and
industry standards, but engineers can easily find
themselves having to make decisions at the boundaries. In
these situations it is important to be able to think about
health, safety and risk in a rational manner, without either
feeling totally constrained by financial pressures, or
disregarding the practical implications of implementing
safety measures.
Course
50

Prof.dr.halit hami oz enginering ethics-course-unit-07

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Prof.dr.halit hami oz enginering ethics-course-unit-07 (20)

More from Prof. Dr. Halit Hami Öz (19)

Recently uploaded (20)

Prof.dr.halit hami oz enginering ethics-course-unit-07