The ASCE Code of Ethics, Canon 1 states :
Point f under this Canon states:
Engineers should be committed to improving the environment by adherence to the principles of sustainable development so as to enhance the quality of life of the general public.
A classical definition of “sustainable development” is the Brundtland commission of 1987:
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
It is an interesting to ask what is the obligation of a civil engineering professional who seeks to uphold Canon 1 and clause f given the definition. I ask a number of rhetorical questions:
- Is it unethical to accept a job in which there is an inordinate consumption of non-renewable resources when alternatives (perhaps in the short term more costly) are available?
- Is there an affirmative ethical obligation to do a life cycle assessment of a project to determine what alternative(s) most closely meets the Brundtland definitions as operationalized? This may require excluding others (even requiring going beyond narrow requirements under particular RFQ’s or RFP’s of clients — making the problem bigger).
- Do engineers have an affirmative obligation under Canon 1d (“Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another person or firm may be in violation of any of the provisions of Canon 1 shall present such information to the proper authority in writing and shall cooperate with the proper authority in furnishing such further information or assistance as may be required.“) to report others who may not be considering the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their duties?