William E. Kelly
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
The Catholic University of America
Washington, DC 20064
Presented at Conference on Engineering at Catholic Colleges and Universities, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio. October, 2005
Session: Engineering Ethics at Catholic Universities
Introduction
In 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) updated its Code of Ethics to include obligations for civil engineers to incorporate the principles of sustainable development in their practices. In 1994, ASCE also adopted its Policy 418 on sustainable development. Sustainable development as defined by ASCE “is the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development."1 More than ten years later, there is still a lack of agreement on the meaning of sustainable development and sustainability in civil engineering; some may still express the view that sustainable development is anti-engineering.
Although some of the environmental problems that initially motivated sustainable development are undoubtedly technology induced, effectively dealing with these issues and indeed fully implementing sustainability in practice will depend on new technologies and new technological approaches. A report by the National Research Council’s Board on Sustainable Development noted that relatively little of the input on sustainable development during the late 1980's and early 1990's had been from the science and technology community.2 Roberts, a long-time champion of sustainable development in the engineering community, sees, or at least saw, sustainable development as primarily a political issue.3 The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) now organizes its activities in three principal areas: environment, economic, and community reflecting the fact that sustainable development is a much broader issue than the environment alone.4
In the engineering profession, ASCE may be the furthest along in its discussion of sustainability and sustainable development although there has been discussion within the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The American Society of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) has taken the lead on green engineering and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) has a statement on enhancing environmental sustainability and on energy and the environment, and a corporate effectiveness policy.
The American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES) is an umbrella organization for U.S. engineering societies and the AAES has a public policy on sustainable development. Sustainable development and sustainability are prominent in the World Federation of Engineering Organization's (WFEO) model code of ethics.5 The WFEO is the international umbrella organization for national engineering societies and AAES is the U.S. member. In this role, AAES supports national and international efforts to disseminate information on sustainable technologies. AAES accomplished this until 2004 by hosting the WFEO Committee on Transfer, Sharing and Assessment of Technology (COMTECH).
Social responsibility is not explicitly mentioned in any of the engineering codes of ethics although the codes effectively define social responsibility as it relates to the practice of engineering. It should be noted that there is no single code of ethics for all of engineering.
Edwin T Layton Jr's “The Revolt of the Engineer : Social Responsibility and the American Engineering Profession” "focused on the on the theme of social responsibility in the context of the history of the development of professionalism among American engineers." This is taken from the preface of the 1986 paperback edition where Layton noted that the book, which was originally published in 1971, "was published before its time."6 According to Layton "social responsibility points in two directions; inwardly at self policy to prevent abuses by colleagues and outwardly, to the making of public policy."7
In 1972, the New York Academy of Sciences held a conference entitled "The Social Responsibility of Engineers” (Fruchtbaum, 1973).8 At that time, environmental issues were just beginning to be recognized in the engineering community; most of the concern was with the war in Vietnam and military technologies and product safety issues. Both environmental and safety issues began to be addressed with the establishment of new regulatory activities at the national level including the Environmental Protection Agency - 1970, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - 1966, and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration -1970.
Bugliarello, in a paper published as part of a series of papers entitled "Engineering as a Social Enterprise", listed five guiding principles for social responsibility for engineers.9 They are: uphold the dignity of man; avoid dangerous or uncontrolled side effects and by-products; make provisions for consequences when technology fails; avoid buttressing social systems that perform poorly and should be replaced; and participate in formulating the "why" of technology.
A shortcoming but probably also a strength is the vagueness of the concept of sustainable development and the term sustainability; both are used by professionals in fields ranging from sociology to environmental engineering. Although the ASCE Code of Ethics specifically refers to the principles of sustainable development, there is a need to define principles as they apply to civil engineering.10 As a concept, social responsibility for engineers appears to share some of the same weaknesses and advantages as the concept of sustainable development.
This paper explores relationships between the concepts of social responsibility and sustainable development as they relate to the profession of engineering. It also suggests some ways that universities could contribute to defining these relationships in their teaching and research missions and in their outreach to the engineering profession. The first part of the paper deals with undergraduate engineering education and preparation of future professionals and the second part with outreach.
Undergraduate Engineering Education
General Education
Much of what engineering students learn about sustainable development, sustainability and social responsibility must come from the general education component of their curricula. For example, studies of economics and ethics are necessary to understand the role of technology in society; technology is used here in the broad sense following Hughes as a term that encompasses engineering.11
Sustainability and sustainable development can be controversial issues. Some feel that sustainable development is an oxymoron. Discussions on sustainable development can become debates that reflect a deep-seated distrust of technology that many in society have. Collini, in an introduction to C.P. Snow's Two Cultures, commented that alarmists in the environmental community don't appreciate that technology is also a solution to many environmental problems.12 Only one hundred years ago technology was generally seen as an unqualified good; today it is in many cases seen as the cause of our environmental problems or as White said - the ecological crisis.13 Engineers have to be prepared to deal with this.
At the Catholic University of America (CUA), the environmental honors sequence suggests what can be done to provide a coherent exposure to sustainable development and social responsibility for students. The sequence consists of four courses in environmental science and engineering, religion, economics and political science intended to be taken in that order.
The director of the honors program has frequently expressed a concern that too few students take the entire four-course sequence. For one reason or another, most students take only the first or at most the first two courses that can both be used to fulfill degree requirements in the School of Arts and Sciences. In the case of the introductory course in environmental science and engineering, it can fulfill the science requirement in lieu of traditional courses in biology, chemistry or physics. However, the value of the environmental sequence is greater than the sum of the individual courses and the environmental-track faculty members are making an effort to lay a better foundation for this in the first course and to provide for more integration overall.
This paper is written from an engineering perspective and relatively few engineering students take the first course and few, if any, take the sequence. Since the sequence is an excellent learning experience, the question can be asked how to make this experience accessible to more engineering or at least more civil engineering students.
Engineering
Most engineering programs in the United States are accredited by ABET and therefore must satisfy the ABET criteria for engineering programs. These criteria exert a very strong influence on engineering curricula. The only explicit requirement for sustainability in the ABET criteria is in the general engineering criteria that apply to all fields of engineering.14 With the great strides being made in the application of sustainability concepts it is logical to begin to look for principles of sustainability that apply to all fields of engineering. What are some basic principles that could be introduced to all engineering students early in their engineering program?
In presenting general engineering principles, it would be desirable to define a design paradigm that addresses the constraints called for in the ABET engineering criteria. It would also be desirable to define a systems context for design and metrics that could be used to evaluate degree of satisfaction of the constraints and to compare alternatives.
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) defines its basic objectives for building sustainability as reduction of consumption of non-renewable resources, minimizing waste, and creating healthy, productive environments.15 Sustainable design principles, according to the GSA, include: the ability to optimize site potential; minimize non-renewable energy consumption; use environmentally preferable products; protect and conserve water; enhance indoor environmental quality; and optimize operational and maintenance practices For buildings, these concepts with metrics have been standardized for practice in the LEED criteria that are now widely used by federal agencies.16
Principles are beginning points and although the GSA objectives and design principles are for buildings, they could be generalized to: designs should strive to reduce consumption of nonrenewable resources; minimize waste; and contribute to healthy, productive environments. The LEED criteria could probably be applied to other projects in the built environment with only minor changes; for example, at least components of transportation systems. Thus, for buildings there are working guidelines to guide sustainable engineering practice and a framework that could be used for developing more general guidelines.
Principles of sustainable development are needed along with examples and case histories along the lines suggested. To that end, the ASCE Committee on Sustainability recently published a primer entitled "Sustainability in Engineering Practice."17 ASCE is now looking to define principles and practices that would apply to the entire built environment.18
The themes of the text currently used for the introduction to environmental science and engineering course at Catholic University (HSEV 101) are sustainability, stewardship, and sound science; stewardship provides the ethical and moral framework.19 The first section of the text presents a general introduction to ecology in a systems context. The author does this because a basic understanding of ecological systems and subsystems, e.g. the carbon cycle and the hydrologic cycle, is necessary to provide a scientific basis for understanding sustainability and sustainable development.
The focus of this paper is civil engineering and the related aspects of sustainable development e.g. water resources and transportation engineering but the concepts of industrial ecology are fundamental to sustainability in engineering areas related to product manufacturing. Should the principles of ecology be considered as basic knowledge for all engineering fields? Many feel that all engineering students should be introduced to the biological sciences as they are to chemistry and physics; the afternoon part of the general/other FE exam now includes five percent biology. A rigorous introduction to environmental science could be a reasonable way to achieve this. This could be accomplished with a requirement for an introductory course in environmental science and engineering for all engineering students with the links between ecology and engineering design highlighted. The ABET science requirement is “ one year of a combination of college level mathematics and basic sciences (some with experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline.”20
At Catholic University, HSEV 101 could be adapted for this purpose. Honors engineering students could take HSEV 101 and would benefit greatly by interactions with students in other university programs. Engineering students that do not qualify for the honors program could take a new engineering course modeled after HSEV 101. This course would emphasize systems concepts for studying natural, engineered, and engineered natural systems. One enhancement for engineering students might be to place more emphasis on quantitative aspects e.g. population dynamics in a systems context.
For the last several years, I have offered a course on sustainable development in civil engineering at the senior-graduate level. The course is open to all students in the university with senior standing; the class has varied from all liberal arts to all civil engineering students. What I have been looking for is a mix of students where we could explore some of the multidisciplinary issues of sustainable development. I see courses in sustainable development as meeting a transitional need with the ideal that these concepts are fully incorporated in engineering analysis and design courses. However, such courses also provide an opportunity to introduce non-engineering students to the important role technology can and must play in sustainable development.
Sustainable development courses are offered in many disciplines and a sustainable development course offered at the Kennedy School at Harvard is an example. The instructor - William Clark - chaired the NRC study on the transition to sustainability. In the introduction to the NRC report, it is noted that there are some sharp differences between the approaches of the science and technology community (as presented in the report) and the approaches some anthropologists would have us take toward sustainability. In Clark’s and the committee’s view this raises the cultural issue and the need to address issues like sustainable development in general education as well as in the specialized fields.21
Sustainability is a broad enough concept to encourage engineering students to consider design in its societal and global context – an ABET requirement. This requires students to think in interdisciplinary ways. Requiring students to think in interdisciplinary ways in the broadest sense is one of the experiences engineering students would gain from taking an introductory environmental engineering and science course open to all university students.
The nature of civil engineering and closely related fields means that issues such as sustainability and social responsibility can be treated explicitly in regular even required courses. This is much less the case in fields such as computer engineering. However, in the long run, changes brought about by the move to the information age will have a major impact on sustainable development. Thus thought needs to be given to how best to expose students in the high-tech areas to sustainability and sustainable development.
Civil Engineering
As was already mentioned, an ASCE committee recently completed a primer on sustainable development.22 In civil engineering, on the surface at least, it seems relatively easy to see what it would mean to incorporate sustainability into practice. For example, the use of the hydrologic system as a model for an actual system with sustainability as a constraint is a natural for civil engineers. It may be worth noting that hydrologists to this day may not all agree on the meaning of terms like “sustained yield” but students should be aware of this and encouraged to explore some of the reasons and in this way develop their critical thinking skills.
Civil engineers appreciate the importance of energy in sustainable development and an area where energy is an overriding issue is transportation. Although environmental issues may be of less concern to the public now than in the recent past, sustainable transportation systems that are more efficient and less polluting are still important with the public. These issues will only become more important as the automobile becomes commonplace in developing countries. Improvements will require interdisciplinary efforts.
The Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG) has been developed by the federal government for building design and is available on the web.23 It was developed partly in response to Executive Order 13123 that deals with sustainable design and development for federal agencies.24 The WBDG criteria include requirements for buildings to be sustainable, secure, durable, cost-effective, productive, and aesthetic. To be sustainable, a building must be energy efficient, site responsive, water conserving, materials sensitive, and healthy. This supports the point made earlier that there is an existing framework for design of buildings that could be extended to at least some of the other components of the built environment.
Explicit consideration of sustainability in civil engineering design education could encourage more use of a systems approach that has never caught on in civil engineering education in the United States. In this respect it should be noted that Bordogna has called for a new breed of civil "systems" engineers.25 Possibly by introducing systems concepts in the context of an introductory environmental course for all engineering students there would be a trickle down effect!
In discussing sustainability as a constraint in design, students must consider the context of their projects. During construction of America's infrastructure, from the construction of the transcontinental railroads to the interstate highway system, relatively little consideration was given to the impacts that these systems would have on the environment and social-economic systems. We could argue that if we had to consider sustainability when building these projects, they would never have been built! Some dams that are no longer needed are actually being removed for environmental reasons. Today the concern is increasingly with restoring and maintaining infrastructure rather than with building new infrastructure at least in the developed countries. In the developing world, assuming adequate capital is available, new infrastructure systems are beings designed and constructed.26 Certainly a great deal of new construction must take place over the next 50 years and the developed world can help itself and the developing world by taking steps to ensure that new construction is consistent with the goal of sustainable development.
There is path dependence to a nation's infrastructure. With the rise of telecommunications and the global marketplace, there are now alternatives to traditional transportation systems. For example, library and learning access can be provided by telecommunications and this will affect transportation patterns. More use of renewable energy could mean less centralized energy distribution. How do we lay some groundwork so engineers in the future can contribute more to sustainable development by providing innovative solutions to the complex infrastructure in areas such as mega cities?
By including sustainability in discussions of design, there is ample motivation to review some of the large existing infrastructure projects from the perspective of sustainability. It should be possible to learn a great deal from such an "enhanced" case history approach and at the same time for students to learn about the history of their profession. This discussion could easily be expanded to consider if the common good was well served and thus the discussion extended beyond engineering.
What is the role of civil engineering in educating all engineering students? The National Research Council (NRC) hosted a forum on sustainable infrastructure in fall 1997 that I attended. Transportation was the major issue; specifically congestion in large cities. There was some agreement that solutions might not involve just more infrastructure but it was not at all clear how best to get the so-called high-tech engineering disciplines involved in these discussion - e.g. moving information rather than people and what are the tradeoffs. If the transportation infrastructure is considered to include highway and computer networks, in an ideal world what should the transportation system look like? What would the most sustainable system look like? Engineers have at least some responsibility – their social responsibility – for the choice of technology. In making these decisions in developed countries, the best decisions are path dependent - dependent on previous investments in say highways. In developing countries, the options are greater - assuming availability of capital - and sustainability and social responsibility need to be explicitly considered. Certainly, all engineering students should be exposed to these broader issues and encouraged to think about them.
After World War II, Europe and Japan had the opportunity to rebuild much of their infrastructure. To what extent did this rebuilding allow them to build a more efficient infrastructure? What can we learn from this experience and apply to developing countries if sufficient capital can be found. What can we learn from rebuilding after natural disasters? Even with the best of intentions, sustainable development for developing countries is not going to be possible without capital. But efficient use of capital by well- educated civil engineers is going to be one of the keys to success in this development.
Ethics and Philosophy
Most textbooks in environmental science include a discussion of environmental ethics and they increasingly start from the premise that for sustainable development - economic development, social development, and the environment are linked. For Wright, sustainability, stewardship, and sound science are the basis for good public policy and an informed public and stewardship provides an ethical and moral framework for decision making.27
At a Catholic university, stewardship is an excellent starting point for a discussion of environmental ethics. However, ethics means providing answers on how to act with respect to the environment and students even vaguely familiar with the many environmental controversies from global warming to nuclear power will recognize the challenges in applying environmental ethics. However students need to be introduced to the different approaches and be exposed to some of the controversy.
One of the most controversial areas is risk assessment and management. All engineering is experimental and thus there are unknown consequences and unintended consequences especially as projects get larger and more complex. There is always risk and uncertainty. A good example of a current project would be the restoration of the Everglades.
How is stewardship defined for the civil engineer? ASCE has taken first steps but there is a need to develop case studies specific to the practice of civil engineering. Civil engineers also have a responsibility to contribute to defining general principles of a stewardship ethic as it applies to the practice of engineering – their social responsibility. Stewardship, as outlined by Wright, goes beyond the environment to include issues such as social justice. One of the challenges for civil engineers that want to contribute to defining best practices for sustainable development is that sustainable development goes beyond the issues that engineers normally deal with.
At CUA, all engineering students are required to take a required course in applied ethics for engineers. This is down from a two-course sequence required a few years ago. With two courses, the first philosophy course provided a theoretical framework for the second applied course. There has been some discussion as to whether engineering students would be better served by an applied ethics course open to all university students. My own view is yes since it would have the added benefit of exposing engineering students to non-engineering thinking. It has been said that if you are an engineer, you must be a utilitarian- a good argument for a course open to all students.28 In my opinion, a first course should also be required for all engineering students at a Catholic university. One of the objections that engineering students have to a first philosophy course is too much reading. This is certainly a concern. However, good reading skills are part of good communication skills - an ABET requirement.
The knowledge of ethics expected of all engineering graduates can be found in two places. Statements in the ABET general criteria that apply to all fields of engineering and the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) specifications for the general engineering and specialty examinations.29
The requirement in the ABET engineering general criteria is that students will attain an “understanding of professional and ethical responsibly.” There is also a requirement relative to design that realistic constraints include constraints such as environmental, ethical and sustainability among other constraints. Finally, closely related is the requirement that students attain “the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental and societal context.” This last requirement captures the integrating theme of sustainable development mentioned earlier.
The NCEES morning general exam that is taken by all engineering students has seven percent of its questions dealing with ethics and business practices. Topic areas include: Code of Ethics (professional and technical societies); ethical versus legal, and public protection issues. The NCEES has a reference handbook that is the only reference allowed for use on the examination; the section on ethics is two pages and essentially deals with the NCEES Model Rules of Professional Conduct.30
The NCEES Model Rules of Professional Conduct make no reference to the environment. However, the first section is entitled the Licensee’s Obligation to Society, in other words an engineer’s social responsibility, and the rules state that “their (licensee’s) first and foremost responsibility is to the public welfare.”31 The NCEES guide also notes that not all cases could ever be covered by codes of ethics.
The principles of sustainable development are explicitly included in the ASCE Code of Ethics with the First Fundamental Cannon being " 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."32
What this adds to the NCEES Model Rules is a striving to comply with the principles of sustainable development. The guidelines to the clause provide little detail although the ASCE primer begins to address this. Vesilind and Gunn review some of the background leading up to the inclusion of sustainable development in the ASCE Code of Ethics; it did not just happen33 This update to the ASCE Code of Ethics is, in my view, an example of the civil engineering profession exercising its social responsibility.
At the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), I gave a single lecture on the environment as part of a senior course in professional practice required of all engineering students. The concepts of ecology were introduced in my lecture along with issues like pollution prevention and risk assessment and management. A lecture on environmental ethics could be included as part of a seminar course for engineering students on many campuses and include issues like sustainable development and an engineer’s social responsibility.
It is never easy to to find room in an always full engineering curricula for another course or even a seminar. This is the despite the fact that the ABET curriculum requirements have actually been reduced. One of the courses that I recall most vividly from my undergraduate days was a seminar course for seniors in civil engineering. Although I do not remember many details, I do recall that the group was small, the seminar leader was the department chair, and the text was the “Exploding Metropolis.”34 The discussion around this book left an impression on me of the importance of civil engineering in shaping the built environment. Many of the observations made in the book are truer today than ever as Jane Jacobs (one of the contributors to the Exploding Metropolis) notes in her recent book.35 Seminar courses discussing the constraints listed in the ABET Criteria is something that could be done in civil engineering programs and opened to other engineering students and other students with senior standing.
Religious Studies
All CUA, engineering students are required take courses in religious studies. As mentioned earlier, the honors sequence includes a religious studies course with an environmental theme. Students that meet the honors guidelines for admission but are not actually enrolled in the honors program can take honors courses on a space-available basis; this course could be promoted to all engineering students through advising. There are other courses in religious studies that could be identified as including sustainable development and closely related concepts and students advised to take them. The ABET requirements for general education are very broad and a concerted effort to identify courses that support the constraints listed in the criteria and advising students to take these courses would lead to a still flexible but much more meaningful general education experience and strengthen compliance with the ABET criteria.
Outreach
The NRC report on what it will require to transition to sustainability states that "Educators in early and continuing education can inform the general public about sustainability issues and make these issues an integral part of the university curricula relating to science, technology and business."36 All universities can contribute to this effort and there is a great deal going on. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recently launched a design competition open to all U.S. school on P3 – people, prosperity and the planet; proposals for the second round were due in January 2005.
US Business Schools have had the Bell (Business-Environment-Learning-Leadership) program for a number of years. The Bell program is organized by the World Resources Institute (WRI). According to the their web site, “BELL works closely with researchers and educators at leading business schools to provide them the tools they need to effectively educate and train the next generation of leaders in sustainable enterprise.” 37
In the first part of the paper, I tried to show how sustainability and to a lesser extent social responsibility could be addressed at the undergraduate level through some fairly modest curricular initiatives. This would have the immediate effect of improving the general education experience for engineering students and, as mentioned earlier, directly address some of the ABET "soft" outcomes. At CUA, sustainability and social responsibility are closely linked to the university mission so doing this would explicitly address Criterion 2 that requires that “ Each engineering program for which an institution seeks accreditation or reaccreditation must have in place: (a) detailed published educational objectives that are consistent with the mission of the institution and these criteria.”
So far, I have concentrated on outlining opportunities to include and link social responsibility and sustainable development in undergraduate engineering curricula. I believe that I am on solid ground here. Having said this, I believe there is a need for and opportunities for Catholic universities to help define relations between sustainable development and social responsibility for engineering practice. There appears to have been very little effort to do this from an engineering perspective although social responsibility has been extensively discussed and is, according to Layton, one of the pillars of the engineering profession.38
Recently, Peter Langford, the President of the Institution of Engineers of Ireland (IEI), in an address to the Institution of Civil Engineers (UK) entitled "Engineering to shape a better world", used the following definition for sustainable development from the Forum for the Future: it "enables all people to realize their potential and improve their quality of life in ways that simultaneously protect and enhance the Earth's life support systems." Later in discussing intelligent transportation systems, specifically the use of technology to control speeding, he notes the need to balance the use of such technologies "with the exigencies of the common good."39
The Constitution of Ireland continually refers to the “common good” and the comments by the IEI on critical infrastructure that Langford was referring to were citing specific text in the Irish Constitution. In Ireland, engineers are thinking about how infrastructure systems can be both sustainable and best serve the common good.
One way of defining an engineer’s social responsibility is to serve the common good as it depends on engineering services. What services to society can only the engineering profession provide? The common good is an important part of Catholic social teaching and can also be approached from an ethical perspective. Catholic engineering programs should provide a forum for discussing and exploring linkages among sustainable development, social responsibility and the common good.
In the US Bishops’ “Renewing the Earth”, the lead statement is “At its core, the environmental crisis is a moral challenge”. Further they state that “Unconstrained economic development is not the answer to improving the lives of the poor”. Instead they encourage “authentic development”. According to the Bishops, “Authentic development supports moderation and even austerity in the use of natural resources. It also encourages a balanced view of human progress consistent with respect for nature”.40 This provides a rich context for the discussion suggested above.
Engineering decision making has evolved considerably since the environmental movement began in the 1960's and decision making tools are available that allow decision making with multiple goals and constraints when these can be quantified. It is recognized that goals and constraints are often not quantifiable and approaches such as adaptive management have evolved and are being used in decision making.41 For example, adaptive management has been used in water resources planning and management for the Columbia River Basin and more recently in the Missouri River Basin.42
There needs to be, in my opinion, more discussion of stewardship in the context of sustainability and the common good to inform public decision making. Recall that Layton sees social responsibility as having two elements with the second element being to influence public policy.43 Rifkin suggests current European Union (EU) thinking on the Precautionary Principle could be linked to the influence of its Christian heritage; the use of the Precautionary Principle in sustainable development is one of the major differences today between the European and US approach and a source of some conflict.44
Fukuyama talks about the importance of hierarchical religions in shaping societal norms.45 Much of what we take for granted in our society is attributable to the support that the western religious traditions provide. Many countries are struggling to develop market economies as a way to improve their standard of living. It is important that the religious traditions contribute to the dialog on sustainable development and social responsibility to ensure this develop is sustainable. Increasingly, government has taken on the role of religion in the hierarchy perhaps less so in the US than in the EU. Although government in the EU is more directly a product of the Christian tradition whereas the US is more a product of the Enlightenment, it is easy to take the important influence of the Christian traditions in shaping western democratic societies for granted. In a small way, engineering programs at Catholic universities could counter this by studying how, for example, Catholic social teaching has and could inform engineering practice.
Since 1999, I have been involved in research and teaching on standardization. What I have been particularly interested in are any relationships between standardization and sustainable development. In November 2004, I was invited to give a paper and serve on a panel on standards in sustainable development at the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) meeting in Calgary. The SCC has recently updated the Canadian National Standards Strategy and sustainable development was one of the issues that they were looking at.
Although there are no existing standards explicitly dealing with sustainable development that I am aware of, there is a proposal for an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard entitled “Guidance on Social Responsibility.” Social responsibility (SR) as it is being defined by ISO is a broad concept that would incorporate sustainable development. Admittedly, I have approached sustainable development primarily from an environmental perspective albeit recognizing that sustainable development reflects a vision where good social, economic and ecological solutions converge or are in harmony.46
According to the ISO New Work Item Proposal, one of the expectations is that the standard “will facilitate the establishment, implementation, maintenance and improvement of social responsibility frameworks in organizations that contribute to sustainable development.”47
I have not been involved directly in the ISO SR deliberations but I have followed them and included them in the standards, sustainable development, and environmental science and engineering courses I teach. The current proposal grew, as I understand it, partly from industry’s desire to have a common reporting format for the “triple bottom line” – social, economic, environmental. Thus the initial proposal to ISO was for a corporate social responsibility standard that would address social, economic, and environmental issues. This was modified during 2003-2004 to social responsibility with the same three components but it is now intended to apply broadly to any organization not just to corporations. Hoffman makes the case that big business is making the connections among the economic, environment, and social aspects of business and that sustainable development can be defined as the region of overlap.48 Industry is pursuing SR to gain competitive advantage. Industry also understands the importance of being at the table when the rules (in this case standards) are developed.
In defining social responsibility, the ISO advisory group (AG) identified eight components: human rights; labor practices and industrial relations; unfair business practices; organizational governance; environmental aspects; marketplace and consumer issues; community involvement; and social development.49 What ISO is trying to do is to see if a common foundation can be established for SR. All of the components in some way affect “quality of life”.
ASCE policy 365 "encourages broader participation by the U.S. in development of international codes and standards while supporting, maintaining and strengthening the existing domestic standards development system." 50 Following Layton, an engineer's social responsibly is in part to influence relevant policy. In today's global economy, a great deal of public policy is being made by non-governmental organizations like the ISO.51 Thus part of an engineer's social responsibility is to work individually and through professional organization like ASCE to ensure good policy in these arenas. The ISO social responsibility standard could ultimately define standards of practice affecting all professions.
Conclusions
Academic institutions can contribute to the acceptance of sustainability in the engineering profession by introducing students to sustainability along with well-established design constraints like economics, ethics, and environmental. Whether sustainability will become the overarching issue that protection of public health & safety are in the current design paradigm remains to be seen. However, it is a unifying concept that is not adequately addressed by environment, economics, and ethics considered separately and it has broader social aspects including its relation to the common good.
Social responsibility is not a new issue for the engineering profession. It is fundamental to defining engineering as a profession. Following Layton's concept that the outward part of an engineer's social responsibility is affecting public policy, the engineering profession is challenged today to help define social responsibly as part of defining the principles and practices of sustainable development.
Catholic engineering programs have a unique opportunity to contribute to defining sustainable development in the practice of engineering. For this to occur, linkages among social responsibility, sustainable development and the common good must be explored, ideally in a multidisciplinary environment. Further, engineering programs at Catholic universities need to infuse these topics into their undergraduate, graduate, research and outreach programs; this is part of their social responsibility.
End Notes and References
