Danielle Neighbour
University of Arkansas
Daniel W. Mead Student Paper 2016
Page 1
ABSTRACT
While engineering design standards serve a multitude of purposes, their primary goal has
remained the same: protection of the public. Significant implications can arise when
engineers do not follow standards correctly, including legal ramifications, forfeiture of
license, and tragic loss of life. However, selection of the design standard to use while
operating abroad can be a difficult decision. In approaching this dilemma, an engineer
should follow the guiding ethical standard of the profession, ASCE’s Code of Ethics. As
stated by Canon 1, the safety and wellbeing of the public must always be an engineer’s
first priority. Whether determined by the International Building Code (IBC), American
standards, local codes, or one’s own ethically centered engineering judgment, the most
conservative standard should be utilized. Furthermore, all solutions must be developed
with the belief that all human lives are of equal value.
INTRODUCTION
The daily lives of citizens worldwide are profoundly affected by the work of civil
engineers. The water they drink, the roads they drive or walk on while commuting to
work, the building in which they spend the workday – all have been meticulously
designed by civil engineers who understand the gravity of their work. In the words of
ASCE’s vision for the profession in 2025, civil engineers are “entrusted by society to
create a sustainable world and enhance the global quality of life” [1].
This commitment to safety defining the vocation, outlined in ASCE’s Code of Ethics,
does not stop outside United States borders. Canon 1 highlights, “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” [2].
In order to fulfill this obligation, engineers must keep the security of those who will
utilize their solutions in the front of their minds during the design and construction
process. Nevertheless, engineers must also remember their responsibility to offer clients
not only the safest solution but also the most economical. Engineering judgment must
consistently be employed to ensure public safety is never compromised, while also
preventing unnecessary costs from being incurred.
Danielle Neighbour
University of Arkansas
Daniel W. Mead Student Paper 2016
Page 2
In today’s globalized world, it’s becoming increasingly common to conduct assignments
on international soil. When doing so, it’s easy for grey areas to cause an oversight of
ethics. For example, many construction materials available in foreign countries are not
standardized and are thus challenging to classify when applying design standards. It can
also be difficult to conduct business with uniquely organized governments. However,
there have been several attempts over the past twenty years to build an international
consensus on design codes.
INTERNATIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The International Code Council (ICC) was first created in 1994 as a non-profit
organization with a mission to “provide the highest quality codes, standards, products and
services for all concerned with the safety and performance of the built environment” [3].
The ICC, a combination of three previously individual organizations that developed their
own codes, now offers codes for multiple facets of the design process. These standards,
including the commonly utilized International Building Code (IBC), have been adopted
as the governing codes for the National Park Service, the Veteran’s Association, and the
Department of Defense’s global facility construction [3].
However, the IBC may not be properly prescriptive. In these cases, turning to more
specific American codes written by organizations such as AISC, ASCE, NDS, or ACI is
acceptable. In other instances, not all international markets have accepted the ICC’s
standards, in which case the engineer should employ the accepted code, unless a more
exacting standard exists. Global companies like Walmart Stores Inc., also use specific
benchmarks. In the case of Walmart, Charles Zimmerman, P.E., who serves as the
company’s Vice President of International Design and Construction, stated that Walmart
requires all markets to exceed local code in any area of life safety, such as fire protection
or means of egress [4]. Finally, some large organizations, such as the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, which administers the Unified Facilities Criteria program, utilize
their own standards [5].
Regardless of cost requirements, project type, or difficulties in construction – such as
non-standardized construction materials – all civil engineers must meet safety
benchmarks in every project they design. This principle cannot, under any circumstance,
Danielle Neighbour
University of Arkansas
Daniel W. Mead Student Paper 2016
Page 3
be compromised. This obligation is outlined in the first canon of ASCE’s Code of Ethics:
the lives, safety, health and welfare of the general public are dependent upon engineering
judgments, decisions and practices [2]. When this ethical code is not adhered to, lives are
endangered.
CASE STUDIES
Unfortunately, examples of engineers who did not adhere to these codes, and thus
violated ethical requirements, are not few. One of the most prominent disasters caused by
insufficient observance of regulations is the Piper Alpha oil rig explosion,
which
occurred in the North Sea off the coast of Aberdeen, Scotland, on July 6, 1988 [6]. The
incident, which resulted in 167 deaths, caused Occidental Petroleum to come under fire
for inadequate safety and maintenance measures. Piper Alpha, the deadliest oil rig
accident to date, was largely caused by ignorance of regulations.
In an ethics case study by ASCE on the tragedy [7], Deborah Grubbe, P.E., the former
safety director of British Petroleum (BP) and DuPont, highlights that safety requires a
change in thought process. Everyone must understand the need to follow all regulations
without involvement of ego or personal title. In the words of Ms. Grubbe, “an engineer
with one mistake can kill more people than any doctor or lawyer.” Civil engineers must
always hold the public’s safety over their own careers – and especially over the project’s
budget. The tragedy of Piper Alpha is a painful reminder of an engineer’s obligation to
always employ the most rigorous design code necessary.
In much more recent history, the collapse of the Weiguan Jinlong high-rise in the 6.4
magnitude earthquake that struck Taiwan on February 6, 2016, was caused by
irresponsible engineering design [8]. The building’s failure, which resulted in 24 deaths,
was the only high-rise to topple in the disaster. Immediate investigation revealed a
horrifying breach in protocol – to save money, tin cans were built into the walls of the
edifice [8]. The use of inadequate material such as tin cans was not only a blatant
disregard of code requirements, but was also a mistake that led to the death of innocent
bystanders. Consequences of this choice were severe: three executives involved in the
building’s development were arrested under charges of professional negligence [9].
Danielle Neighbour
University of Arkansas
Daniel W. Mead Student Paper 2016
Page 4
AVOIDING CORRUPTION
In addition to various potential building codes, corruption may arise as a major issue an
engineer could face while working internationally. Thus, when discussing design
standards and ethical obligations in the foreign field, the problem of corruption must
additionally be addressed. ASCE’s Code of Ethics highlights this subject multiple times.
Primarily, Canon 6 states, “engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance
the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero
tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption” [1]. Moreover, Canon 5 outlines “engineers
shall not give, solicit or receive either directly or indirectly, any political contribution,
gratuity, or unlawful consideration in order to secure work” [1]. These words highlighted
in the Code of Ethics must be kept in the forefront of engineers’ minds while working in
potentially corrupt markets.
Not only should corruption be prevented from an ethical standpoint, but also from a legal
one: the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 [10] includes strict anti-bribery
provisions. Violation of the FCPA incurs grave penalties. In addition, the United Nations
Convention Against Corruption, signed in 2003, criminalizes practices such as trading in
influence, bribery, and embezzlement in both the public and private sectors on a global
scale [11]. In the words of the UN’s documentation, “[corruption] undermines democracy
and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the
quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security
to flourish” [11].
Fraudulence can be avoided through multiple methods. Perhaps the most effective
technique is one utilized by Walmart Stores, Inc.: the retail giant employs austere
compliance programs that make participation in bribery nearly impossible. This system,
entitled the Walmart Global Compliance Action Steps, includes third party due diligence
and a ‘robust global policy and accompanying procedures designed to prevent, detect,
and remediate violations’ [13].
Another method of corruption avoidance centers on education. Informing all involved in
a design project of the relevant regulations, the reasons these rules exist, and the legal
consequences that will ensue if corrupt practices are employed can prevent bribery.
Danielle Neighbour
University of Arkansas
Daniel W. Mead Student Paper 2016
Page 5
Global establishments like Fluor Corporation [12] and the World Federal of Engineering
Organizations (WFEO), which includes its own Anti-Corruption Committee (CAC), use
this model. The CAC aims to “engage the worldwide engineering community in the
global efforts to fight corruption” [14]. Finally, many companies establish an office in the
country in which they work, a practice that can help prevent the organization from being
taken advantage of by potentially fraudulent officials.
AN ENGINEER’S ETHICAL STANCE – VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE
Ultimately, an engineer’s ethical obligations delve beyond a book of legal requirements.
One standard remains the same regardless of location: the value of a human life. Even in
developing nations with no standardized codes, the value of one life does not change.
Clean water is not only deserved by select communities; the right to live or work in a
structurally sound building does not have borders.
In order to distinctly define the design standard upon which an engineer can rely while
abroad, all engineers must first subscribe to this concept. Standards, meant to safeguard
those using or constructing engineering developments, are firmly based on the guiding
concept that all lives must be equally protected. In the end, an engineer must consistently
keep the goal of his or her project in mind – to improve the livelihood of the public. After
all, ASCE’s vision statement highlights this sentiment exactly. It states, “civil engineers
are global leaders building a better quality of life” [15]. This quality of life should never
be limited to a certain corner of the world or people group.
CONCLUSION
Ignorance of engineering guidelines – whether blatant or inadvertent – has severe
implications. Civil engineers must always keep the greater, grander reasons they practice
the profession in mind. With the genuine desire to use their skills to help others, civil
engineers should adhere to the standards that will keep the public as safe as possible.
Thus, an engineer should utilize stringent codes, whether they are determined by the IBC,
local standards, American regulations, or the engineer’s personal judgment, to offer the
most economical and safe design solution.
Danielle Neighbour
University of Arkansas
Daniel W. Mead Student Paper 2016
Page 6
REFERENCES
1. "The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025." ASCE. ASCE, n.d. Web. Feb. 2016.
2. "Code of Ethics." ASCE. ASCE, n.d. Web. Feb. 2016.
3. "About ICC." ICC. International Code Council, 2015. Web. Feb. 2016.
4. Zimmerman, Charles R., P.E. "International Design Protocol." E-mail interview. 4
Feb. 2016.
5. "Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC)." Construction Criteria Base. Whole Building
Design Guide, n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2016.
6. Macalister, Terry. "Piper Alpha Disaster." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media,
04 July 2013. Web. Feb. 2016.
7. Grubbe, Deborah, P.E. "Piper Alpha: Ethics Case Study No. 2." YouTube. ASCE, 2
July 2015. Web. Feb. 2016.
8. Yan, Sophia, and Mariano Castillo. "Taiwan Earthquake." CNN. Cable News
Network, 8 Feb. 2016. Web. Feb. 2016.
9. "Taiwan Developer Arrested in Collapse of Earthquake-hit Building." VOA. Voice of
America, 10 Feb. 2016. Web. Feb. 2016.
10. "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act." Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. United States Justice
Dept., 23 Sept. 2015. Web. Feb. 2016.
11. United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Vienna: United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime, 2004. PDF.
12. "Fluor Supports External Anti-Corruption Efforts through Collective Action." Fluor
Corporation. Fluor Corporation, 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016.
13. "Walmart Global Compliance Action Steps." Walmart. Walmart Stores, Inc., 17 Dec.
2012. Web. Feb. 2016.
14. Manuhwa, Martin. "Anti Corruption Committee (CAC)." World Federation of
Engineering Organizations. 2008. Web. Feb. 2016.
15. "About ASCE." ASCE. ASCE, n.d. Web. Feb. 2016.