Chapter 10 International Engineering Professionalism

1. Chapter 10 International Engineering Professionalism

2. In this chapter • Examples from different countries. • Problems faced by engineers working in the international domain (especially less industrialized countries). • Typical problems and engineering codes at non-home (especially less industrialized) countries. • How to overcome difficult situations as engineers working at/with less industrialized countries (LIC)? • The issue of Human Rights (while working in LICs). • How to Avoid Paternalism and Exploitation. • Applying the Golden Rule. • Bribery, extortion, grease payments, gifts. • Sweatshops—revisited.

3. The ‘Sweatshops’ • Production Plants (most commonly the textile sector) in developing countries: • employing underpaid workers (children or young women), • very long working hours, • no security or insurance, • hostile treatment and abuse towards workers. • See also www.sweatshopwatch.org • Ironically, all developed countries passed through a stage in which they employed their own ‘sweatshops’ for economic growth. • Another common argument in favor of sweatshops is that if they are closed, most of those workers will remain jobless and their families will be starving. • Case of Hanna supervising the installation of new facilities for the overseas plant of H&J (p.245/234).

6. Examples from different countries • In the U.S. Professional Engineer licensing requires: • Education • Experience • Examination • Education/Experience common, but Examination is not universal. • In EU Countries there is no agreed standards on licensing. Each country has its own regulations and standards. • Nevertheless, there is an growing tendency in mutual recognition of engineering licenses. • In the long run procedures for licensure will become more uniform throughout the world.

7. Problems faced in (developing) countries • Typical situations of this chapter: An engineer from an Industrialized Country (IC) working in a developing, Less Industrialized Country (LIC). • Engineers country of origin will be called the “home country” • and the one he works will be called the “host country”. • As already stated most of the cases considered in this chapter are related to engineers from IC working at (or working together with the state officials or a private company representatives) an LIC.

8. Values and Practices • Host countries can have very different values and practices which can be problematic for home-country engineers. • Case of James (p.236). • Different cultures, different values but: • There are core values that all cultures must share (honesty, adherence to contracts, prohibition of theft, etc.). • Distinction between what is legally acceptable and what is often practiced in the host country (bribery, grease payments, etc. prohibited by law but very common in underdeveloped countries). • Some host countries have very different norms. • Nepotism, case of Wanda (p.236). • Business relations vs. personal relations, case of James (p.237). • Roles of women and men in the society.

9. Economic Conditions • Host countries can have very different living conditions than the home country. Huge gaps of income. • Case of Jane (p.237). • Lower safety standards, living conditions, much less salaries can be considered normal for the host countries, but problematic for an engineer coming from the home country.

10. Background Institutions • Absence of laws and some regulatory agencies in host countries which are present in ICs. • Case of Diane (p.238). • Absence of background institutions can cause moral problems for engineers from the home country. • Lack of financial regulations. • Lack of employee protection rights, insurance, etc. • Disclosure of health and safety hazards on products not enforced. • Toxic chemical restrictions looser or nonexistent. • Regulations present but ineffectively enforced. • Engineer from the IC might be faced with the decision of adopting the LIC standard or applying the IC standard at the expense of suffering from unfair competition.

11. Corruption • Corruption can be very widespread in the host country. • Case of Roger (p.238).

12. Non-citizen Status • Should the home country engineers working in LICs actively work for establishment of IC standards? • Is it their responsibility or should they refrain from interfering in the domestic politics of the host country.

13. Vulnerability • Citizens of LICs are more vulnerable than those in ICs. • Vulnerability in LIC takes different forms: • Lack of education and knowledge. Controversy of advertisement campaigns in LICs. • Lack of political and economic power of people. • Limited or no democracy, power of oligarchic structures. • Little ability of people to influence positive change. • Hence, engineers might have further responsibilities than those working in ICs. • Does that impose further moral obligations for engineers (originally from IC) working in a LIC?

14. Codes in the International Context • One 1996 decision by the NSPE Ethical Review Board on an international issue (case 96-5) ruled that: • Engineer A (from home country) working on a project at host country should not give priority in retaining (preventing) a local engineer who would give gifts to the state officials of the host country. • The Welfare Requirement • Complications in applying for the host countries. • Further difficulty with the definition of ‘public’ in the host country. • One should revise the classical definition of public (see p.241) to be more applicable for the LICs.

15. Codes in the International Context (cont.) • Bribery and Conflicts of Interest • Clear prohibitions in engineering codes (see p.241 for NSPE). • Case of Walter (p.242). • Environment • Controversy of environmental protection vs. development in LICs. • Case of Joyce (p.242). • Nondiscrimination • Despite the code measures against discrimination some cultures impose discrimination. Can be very problematic for engineers working at LICs. • Case of John (p.242).

16. Codes in the International Context (cont.) • Reputation of the Profession • NSPE Code II.1.d requires engineers not to “associate in business ventures with any person or firm which they have reason to believe is engaging in fraudulent or dishonest business or professional practices.” • Similar statements from ASCE and ASME codes. • Case of Ed (p.243). • Promoting Knowledge, Avoiding Deception • NSPE III.3 requires engineers to “avoid all conduct or practice which is likely to discredit the profession or deceive the public.” • IEEE Canon 5 requires members to “improve the understanding of technology, its appropriate application, and potential consequences…” • Case of Jim (p.244).

17. To Overcome the Difficulties in LICs • It is clear that the code guidelines are insufficient to resolve possible problems encountered by engineers in LICs. • Moral absolutism vs. moral relativism. • Moral absolutism: behaving in LIC as if in IC. Difficulties: • Technology, knowledge, resources and social structure not always available in host countries. (Grease payments might be very common.) • Home country standards and values not necessarily applicable in the host country. (ex: separation of business with personal friendship.) • Moral relativism: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do!” Problems: • Might lead to illegal actions. • Unjustifiable, harmful, detestable actions (even if not illegal).

18. To Overcome the Difficulties in LICs (cont.) • Too little vs. too much personal responsibility. • Engineers need not take responsibility for decisions of which they have little or no control. • On the other hand engineers might influence some of these decisions (hence have some responsibility). Sometimes they should refuse to participate in clear violations of professional ethics. • Moral laxism vs. moral rigorism. • Moral laxism can lead to total abandonment of moral principles. • Moral rigorism can result with a sort of rejectionism which is not constructive at all.

19. Human Rights Internationalized • “Human Rights” is a universal issue despite cultural and ethical variations. • UN’s International Bill of Human Rights. • Declaration of Human Rights (1948). • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. • These documents include basic rights: • Life • Liberty • Security • Not to be held in slavery • Not to be tortured • Recognition before the law

20. Human Rights Internationalized (cont.) • These documents include basic rights (continued): • Impartial trial and protection from arbitrary arrest • Freedom of movement • Marriage • Not to marry without free consent • Property ownership • Freedom of thought • Peaceful assembly and participation in government • Social security and work • Education • Participating and forming trade unions • Nondiscrimination • Minimal standard of living

21. Human Rights Internationalized (cont.) • The wish list? Some of the rights are positive rights. • Which of these rights do professionals have obligations to respect (when working in LIC)? • An “International Right” defined as James Nickel: • a specific right that every country should, if resources and conditions permit, grant to its citizens. Conditions of relevance: • The right must protect something of very great importance. • The right must be subject to substantial and recurrent threats. • The obligations or burdens imposed by the right must be affordable in relation to the resources of the country, the other obligations the country must fulfill, and fairness in the distribution of burdens among citizens. • Based on Nickel’s definition some rights of the UN’s list become questionable. • Gewirth’s hierarchy of fundamental rights (see Ch.4). • What is necessary for a person to exercise his moral agency • More specific rights in his list than the UN’s list

22. Is “Human Rights” Western? • “Human Rights” is a very recent concept and closely associated with the recent trend of Western Civilization. • Criticisms: • “Equality before the law”. Does that mean “right to equality before the law”? • Implication of a Western individualism contrary to the values of non-Western cultures (where group is more important than the individual). • Even many of the ‘negative rights’ imply ‘positive’ and not merely negative duties on the part of others. (Each member of the community owes something to other members of the community in a positive way) • Criticisms left aside, the listed rights are an important guide in making judgments for moral questions which might arise while working at LICs as engineers.

23. Paternalism and Exploitation • Paternalism—excessive or misplaced concern for the welfare of the public. • Exploitation—very little concern for the welfare of the public. • Risk of exploitation arises when the following five conditions are present (according to Robert Goodin): • Asymmetrical balance of power (strong vs. weak). • The subordinate party needs the resources provided by exploitation. • For the subordinate party the exploitative relationship is the only source of such resources. • Dominant party in the relationship exercises discretionary control over the needed resources. • Resources of the subordinate party are used without adequate compensation.

24. Paternalism and Exploitation (cont.) • Sample paradigm case of exploitation, Coppergiant (p.250). • Exploitation is usually wrong, because it violates the moral agency of individuals in an unacceptable way. • Exploiting individuals or groups involves overriding their own goals and purposes without their free and informed consent. • Nevertheless, there may be times when some degree of exploitation is justified because of some greater good. (Low prices for an LIC’s natural resources, simply because of current market conditions.) • Paternalism—substituting one’s own judgment powers for that of another (the recipient) to promote the recipient’s benefit (deciding on what is better for the recipient). • Sample paradigm case of paternalism (p.251). • One can argue that “paramountcy” is too paternalistic.

25. Paternalism and Exploitation (cont.) • Paternalism (like exploitation) can also violate the moral agency of individuals when it overrides the free and informed consent of individuals to actions and policies that effect them. • Weak paternalism—the paternalist substitutes his/her judgment for the recipient’s when there is reason to believe the recipient may not be exercising his/her moral agency effectively. Presence of one of the conditions below is sufficient to justify weak paternalism: • A person may be under undue emotional pressure. • A person may be ignorant of the consequences of his/her action. • A person may be too young to full comprehend the relevant factors. • Time may be necessary for the paternalist to determine whether a person is making a free and informed decision.

26. Paternalism and Exploitation (cont.) • Paternalism (cont.) • Strong paternalism—the paternalist substitutes his/her judgment when there is no reason to believe the recipient is not exercising his/her moral agency effectively. The paternalist’s justification for doing this is the potential harm to the recipient that can be avoided or the benefit that can be produced by the paternalistic action. • Weak paternalism—close to respect for persons. • Strong paternalism—reflects utilitarianism. • Case of John (pp.252-3), paternalistic action justified.

27. The Golden Rule Application • Golden Rule is one useful guide to resolve issues. • “How would I want foreign engineers and businesspeople to act in my country if I were a host-country citizen?” • Three tests can be useful: • Refuse to engage in engineering activities that do intentional and avoidable harm. • Attempt to promote the overall well-being of host-country citizens. • Refuse to engage in engineering activities that fail to respect host-country norms, as long as these norms do not violate: • one’s own conscience, • home-country or host-country laws, • the guidelines to respect human rights and to avoid paternalism and exploitation.

28. Refuse to engage in intentional and avoidable harm • If engineers can place themselves in place of host-country citizens, then they would not want any foreign engineers or businesspeople to engage in intentional and avoidable harm. But, refraining from avoidable harm can be very difficult to interpret for some situations. • Many technological innovations do produce some harm (a new dam may provide power, irrigation possibilities but can also flood valuable farmlands and uproot residents from their homes). • The harm should not be intentional, and unavoidable in producing the essential objectives. • To determine whether all avoidable harm is eliminated one can ask the question: “Is there anything more that can be reasonably done to eliminate the harmful features of a situation?”

29. Promote the overall well-being of the host-country • If engineers can place themselves in place of host-country citizens, then they probably would want foreign engineers and businesspeople only if their activity promotes the overall well-being of the host-country considering every related factor. • Holding paramount the welfare of the public also implies that engineers must engage in projects whose good outweighs the harm. • To determine if an action promotes the overall well-being of host-country citizens is to ask if the host-country citizens would consent to the action (see the sample case, p. 256/254).

30. Avoid violating host-country norms • If engineers can place themselves in place of host-country citizens, then they probably wouldn’t want foreign engineers and businesspeople to violate laws, values, and practices. • On the other hand the engineer would not want to violate his/her own conscience as well: • An engineer would not honor cultural norms in support of human slavery and torture. • Furthermore in certain cases the host-country citizens might be in favor of changing the traditional norms (especially when they are in contradiction with social and economic development). • Decisions on whether to comply with host-country norms can be difficult (see the sample case p.257/255). • Comply with these norms unless there is a good reason to reject. • Guidelines to comply or reject (see (a) through (f) p.258/255). • What should be the attitude towards nepotism, for example (p.257/255).

31. Bribery, extortion, grease payments, gifts • Distinction between bribery, extortion, grease payments and gifts. • Bribery—payment to a person (possibly a government official) in exchange for his/her giving special consideration that is incompatible with the duties of his/her position. • See the paradigm bribing case (p.263/256). • Bribes presuppose an agreement that it is in exchange for a certain type of conduct. Otherwise we can’t distinguish it from gifts. • Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977) prohibits American citizens bribing foreign government officials. • Professional engineering codes forbid bribery. • There is an increasing awareness to combat bribery throughout the world.

32. Bribery, extortion, grease payments, gifts (cont.) • Extortion—payment to a person (possibly a government official) so that the proposed bid is taken into consideration (without any guarantee of granting of the project). • Unlike bribery extortion is not an exchange of favors. • Extortion might also be defined as the act of threatening someone with harm (that the extorter is not entitled to inflict) to obtain benefits to which the extorter has no prior right. • Sometimes a businessperson can’t be sure if his/her payment is bribery or extortion. • Moral status of paying extortion is different than bribery: • Paying extortion will not usually corrupt professional judgment. • Extortion can damage professional reputation, but not as much as bribery.

33. Bribery, extortion, grease payments, gifts (cont.) • Moral status of paying extortion is different than bribery (cont.): • Extortion will not cause one to act contrary to the best interests of the employer or the client (for example, by choosing an inferior product), but involves consuming employer/client’s money. • Paying extortion does not undermine the efficiency of market by promotion of expensive and inferior products. • Paying extortion does not give an unfair advantage over the others. • Grease payments—to facilitate routine bureaucratic decisions (such as passing goods through customs). • Grease payments are a form of petty extortion (sometimes tacitly condoned by governments. • Gifts—in some cultures gift-taking and business relations build on friendships are considered to be very normal.

34. Sweatshops revisited • The No Difference Argument (NDA) to justify sweatshops: • Premise A: I am only doing something wrong if my action makes the world a worse place than it would be otherwise. • Premise B: My action in buying clothes produced in Myanmar does not make the world a worse place than it would be otherwise, because somebody else will do it even if I don’t. • Conclusion C: So my action is not wrong. • The NDA is problematic because: • It is not possible to claim premise B with certainty. • Premise B’s assumption that the world will not be worse off only if nobody buys clothes produced in Myanmar is not very correct. • The claim of premise A that the action is wrong only if it makes the world a worse place is very controversial. • Furthermore, the engineer is responsible only by participating.

35. Sweatshops revisited (cont.) • To help avoid participating in the harm (if there is one) one should consider the situation from three perspectives: • Compliance with Human Rights. • Avoidance of exploitation and paternalism. • Application of the Golden Rule. • One should use the 3 tests to apply the Golden Rule: • Eliminate intentional and avoidable harm. • Promote the overall well-being of host-country residents. • Respect the host-country norms (as long as they are not in violation of other guidelines, the conscience of home-country residents and relevant laws).

36. Culture Transcending (CT) Norms CT Norms: • Avoiding Exploitation • Avoiding Paternalism • Avoiding Bribery and giving or receiving excessive gifts. • Avoiding the violation of human rights • Promoting the host country’s welfare • Respecting cultural norms and laws • Protecting health and safety • Protecting the environment • Promoting legitimate Background Institutions.

37. Sweatshops in Asia: Recall the case on page233 or 244 (3rd edn.) Engineer Hanna is about to be sent to country X to direct the installation of new equipment in a factory where young woman are employed for $0.80 per day to make clothes for export. The working conditions are clean and safe, and the young woman prefer the work to village life. Hanna wonders whether she should take the assignment or not.

38. Apply the three guidelines (or CT Norms) • Human Rights: All human beings have a right to a minimal standard of living. Is this right violated in this case? • Paternalism? • Exploitation? Can the low wages be considered as exploitative? Are the young woman being exploited? Several of the criteria are met: There is an imbalance of power between the company and young woman, the young woman need the wages to protect their vital interests, the company may be the only source of needed funds other than undesirable sources such as begging or prostitution.

39. Question is: Could the firm afford to pay the young woman more? Consider the highly competitive nature of the clothing industry! H&J has at least some control over wages , within the limits of the market… Do we know all relevant facts?