Sustainability in the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 1st cannon of code of ethics 10

[MRM]

I haven’t seen much discussion on this (if any), which mainly relates to civil engineering practice. Then again, maybe it's also something going on in other engineering disciplines too...

The ASCE 1st fundamental cannon of the code of ethics is written as follows:
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.

The NSPE 1st fundamental cannon of its code of ethics reads:
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

It would seem to me and many others, based on recorded discussions about ASCE including sustainability in the fundamental cannons in 1996, that there was a fair amount of discussion at the time, (e.g.,

https://www.asce.org/question-of-ethics-articles/nov-2008/

), but what is the current thinking on this?

If there are safety issues/decisions and sustainability issues/decisions on a particular project, under ASCE’s cannon, which would take precedence: safety or sustainability?

It seems that the NSPE code makes the case for safety coming first (i.e., safety, health, and welfare of the public being of paramount importance), with sustainability mentioned later in the code as another consideration.

I wonder if this difference in the codes has added any confusion to what engineers are supposing to be aiming for. And is it so much to ask that the NSPE and ASCE codes should strive to be more unified, especially on something as important as the 1st cannon?

I’d imagine each state’s administrative code would control in some ethical disputes, but I’m ignoring that for the time.

 

[truckandbus]

Not a civil engineer, but the wording would indicate sustainablity take the back seat to safety, health and welfare (the use of the word 'strive' as it relates to sustainablilty).

One could argue that welfare of the public is directly related to sustainable designs

 

[Ron]

Sustainability is an overly broad term with poor definition. I don't like to see such in a Canon of ethics.

 

[IRstuff]

"shall strive to comply with the principles"

That's a long-winded way to say, "It's only a goal." and not a requirement nor a legal obligation. In the meanwhile you have a LEGAL obligation to, "Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public."

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[MRM]

Thanks for your time and the thoughts. I agree with all.

In particular, truckandbus, I see what you mean about that part being secondary to public safety-I agree. It's very strange the wording they chose to use though... "shall," and "comply" tend to be pretty hard-hitting in the legal/contractual senses. And I guess the word "strive" could have some different interpretations too regarding the seriousness of the term. On the other hand, sustainability is certainly not well-defined as it is, as Ron mentions. Also, as he said, I'm not sure what business any of that has being in the first Canon.

The way that engineers (civil, mostly) apparently seem to simply go with it just surprises me a little bit, I suppose. It seems like it really muddies the water having both of those items together in the same canon.

 

[cvg]

The way that engineers (civil, mostly) apparently seem to simply go with it just surprises me a little bit

don't blame all of us "civils" for the actions of ASCE, I cancelled my ASCE membership several years ago as their agenda just didn't mesh all that well with me.

 

[IRstuff]

"I'm not sure what business any of that has being in the first Canon."

It has to do with the realization that we can no longer tout "Manifest Destiny" and produce things that consume more than our fair share of resources or things that damage the environment more than necessary. In that sense, it is "wrong" to be wasteful of precious resources and the environment, and "right" vs. "wrong, is certainly the purview of an ethical code.

However, being Americans, we're all about capitalism, so we obviously don't want to spend too much money trying be ethical, hence, we only "strive" to achieve that.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[cvg]

That's a long-winded way to say, "It's only a goal." and not a requirement nor a legal obligation. In the meanwhile you have a LEGAL obligation to, "Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public."

the "code of ethics" published by various societies are not legal requirements, so everything within them are "goals". Good goals, but goals nevertheless.

Given the excessively broad definition as you can see in the link below, its easy to see why such a statement would be difficult to legally comply with as anything more than just a good goal


United Nations definition of sustainability:

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

 

[charliealphabravo]

Things we "strive" to do are policies and should not be stated in the same breath as the things we "shall" do. "Shall strive" is just an oxymoron.

 

[MRM]

IR, I agree with you about its importance, but wouldn't the formation of a new canon (added to the current ones) dedicated to sustainability be better than lumping it in with public safety? And if they wanted to combine it in with something else, why didn't they combine sustainability with any of the other existing canons? Perhaps #6 would be a better fit [Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession....]. That seems closer to the various ideals of sustainability than public safety to me.

charliealphabravo-you said what I was trying to say way better than I said what I was trying to say!

cvg-I appreciate your comment about not blaming all civils for the actions of ASCE...I actually hadn't considered it that way until I read that.

 

[IRstuff]

More to the point, it's about ethical treatment of our environment, and given the fragility our environment, I think they fell short of their aspirations because of the reality of economics and lack of political will.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[charliealphabravo]

I like how the NSPE code is written. The language regarding sustainable development falls under a heading of public interest objectives.

III.2.d. Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.​

Firmer language is simply not compatible with the the current role and authority of engineers in addressing an issue like sustainability.

 

[GregLocock]

As Yoda said "Do, or not do, there is no "try""".

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[WARose]

Sounds like a bunch gobbledygook to me. If ASCE is so worried about "safety, health, and welfare of the public" (and hopefully the profession in general).....they wouldn't be talking about this, they'd actually be doing something about the fact so much engineering work is being sent overseas and then stamped by a engineer here for pennies on the dollar.

If they want to "sustain" something.....that would be a good place to start.

 

[moltenmetal]

The term "sustainability" is ill-defined to the point of meaninglessness. Nothing which uses finite resources is, by definition, sustainable- and yet I have no less right to use the non-renewable resources of the earth to meet my needs than any human who has lived before me or will live after me. If there is a sustainability imperative, it is to consider my present wants against the needs of people in the future. That would be a sensible thing to ask engineers to consider, rather than "sustainability", but of course it leaves the enormous and intimately personal distinction between wants and needs. The whole thing is a philosophical mess.

The other thing to consider here is the power dynamic. Engineers respond to the demands of employers, clients and consumers. Is it reasonable for engineers to tell clients they can't have what they're willing to pay for because it isn't "sustainable"? We can certainly do so if it isn't adequately safe- in fact we're expected to do so even if we will lose our job as a result.

 

[dik]

We have a couple of instances in Winnipeg. One, a public building experiencing a envelope failure, likely due to improper detailing. Buildings surrounding it are several decades older and are still in OK shape. The other is that due to possible mismanagement and or E&O on construction documents for recent work the cost has been inflated by several $Billion... both will cost taxpayers considerable sums in the future... Our professional body is strangely silent about 'protecting the public'. I think this issue is largely a sham.

Dik