Abstract
This article explores the ethical challenges faced by construction engineers in balancing legal compliance with sustainable practices. It emphasizes the importance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainable development in an industry that significantly impacts both the environment and society. The article examines how construction professionals navigate moral dilemmas when deciding between immediate economic returns and long-term environmental and social welfare. Through ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism, rights-based approaches, and the common good, the article argues for a greater emphasis on sustainability in construction, despite the financial and organizational barriers that hinder its widespread adoption. A case study of the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse is discussed to highlight the catastrophic consequences of neglecting ethical standards. Ultimately, the article advocates for stronger ethical guidelines and leadership to promote sustainability and social responsibility in the construction industry.
Introduction
Construction plays a significant role in the U.S. economy. In the first quarter of 2023, over 919,000 construction firms were operating across the country [1]. This industry employs approximately 8 million people and generates nearly $2.1 trillion in structural projects annually [1]. Construction is essential to our society. We rely on it for the building and upkeep of vital infrastructure like roads, hospitals, schools, and housing. It shapes the environment we live and work in.
Construction faces more and more scrutiny for its environmental impact and the ethical dilemmas that arise when balancing legal requirements, profitability, and sustainable practices. Construction engineers often face decisions that challenge them to prioritize either immediate economic returns or long-term environmental and social welfare. The ethical issues of sustainability in construction engineering demand the balance of societal and environmental protection with project deadlines and profit margins. By exploring various ethical frameworks, it can be demonstrated that prioritizing sustainable practices is morally imperative and outweighs short-term profit.
Defining the Ethical Problem: Legal Compliance vs. Ethical Responsibility
It’s important for professionals to balance both legal requirements and ethical duties carefully. While legal compliance refers to adhering to laws and regulations, ethical responsibility involves a broader set of moral obligations that may not always align with what is legally allowed. For example, an engineer might find that their company is emitting a substance into the atmosphere that is not currently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although this action is technically legally acceptable, it raises significant ethical concerns because of the potential harm that can be done to both human health and the environment [2]. This scenario illustrates that although something may be legal, that does not mean it is ethical.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has recognized the importance of ethical standards for over a century and adopted a code of ethics in 1914 as part of the professionalization of engineering [2]. This code of ethics serves as a guiding framework for engineers and emphasizes the prioritization of public welfare and environmental stewardship over legal compliance. For example, in the first two sections of the ASCE code of ethics, it states, “First and foremost, protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public… [and] adhere to the principles of sustainable development” [3]. This guideline implies that engineers should prioritize public welfare and sustainability in their decisions, even when those practices are not required by law. By focusing on sustainable development, ASCE encourages engineers to think beyond legal requirements and consider the long-term impact of their projects on both people and the planet. It is essential for engineers to build a strong understanding of environmental ethics in the construction industry, as this empowers professionals to make informed decisions that reflect both legal obligations and ethical responsibilities [2]. The balance between the two is key in promoting a sustainably built environment that respects the needs of current and future generations, despite the reality that it is much easier said than done.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Practices in Construction
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainable practices work hand in hand in the construction industry. CSR is the concept that businesses should conduct their operations in ways that create beneficial effects on society and the environment [4]. Construction activities significantly affect both the environment and society, and as companies adopt CSR, they are also taking responsibility for minimizing negative impacts: reducing pollution, conserving resources, and addressing social issues like fair labor practices and community welfare. This interconnected approach reflects a commitment to ethical standards that look out for both people and the planet.
The Role of SMEs in Advancing Sustainable Construction Practices
The construction industry is responsible for approximately a third of global carbon emissions. This underscores the urgent need for sustainable practices; however, the integration of CSR into construction practices is intricate and can cause disagreements. Larger companies such as Lend Lease and Carillion have taken steps towards sustainability by forming partnerships and adopting new management strategies. However, the involvement of small and medium businesses (SMEs) in sustainable initiatives is limited and raises concerns about how inclusive sustainable development endeavors are within the industry [5]. Looking at residential construction, about 80% of home builders and specialty trade contractor firms are small businesses. Given their prevalence, actively involving SMEs in sustainable practices is critical to achieving meaningful progress in the field of construction [6].
Balancing Economic Performance and Ethical Responsibilities in CSR
One of the primary challenges in incorporating CSR within construction is the tension between economic performance and ethical responsibilities. Carroll’s pyramid of CSR, a well-known framework created by Archie B. Carroll, suggests that economic responsibilities are the base of legal, ethical, and philanthropic obligations, which means that without a solid economic foundation, the other responsibilities may not be possible. This perspective is supported by evidence that some companies in the construction industry prefer to pay fines rather than change their practices to meet sustainability standards [5]. Reluctance to shift to sustainable practices highlights that some companies perceive immediate economic gains to be worth prioritizing. This begs the question – why should businesses opt for sustainable approaches despite the initial expenses?
Addressing the Disparities in CSR Implementation
The effectiveness of CSR initiatives can vary greatly across different companies and contexts. For instance, while companies like Aggregate Industries and Marshalls plc have been recognized for their strong performance in sustainability audits, the construction industry as a whole still faces the challenge of integrating CSR into everyday practices [5]. This imbalance shows that while some companies are leading the way, many others are lagging. The difference complicates the narrative around CSR in construction. It raises another question: Is it fair to hold all companies to the same standards of sustainability when their capacities and motivations differ?
Although there are clear examples of companies successfully integrating these principles, the overall landscape of the industry demonstrates significant gaps and challenges. The debate continues over the best course of action, whether to push for immediate compliance with sustainability standards or to incorporate a more gradual and inclusive approach that considers the diverse capabilities of all companies, small and large. As construction companies navigate the complexities of CSR and sustainability, ethical theories offer valuable frameworks that can allow companies to assess and guide their practices. Some approaches include utilitarianism, the rights approach, virtue ethics, and more. By leveraging these ethical tools, the focus shifts from choosing between profitability and sustainability to finding strategies to achieve both goals.
Applying Ethical Theories to Construction’s Sustainability Challenges
The construction industry’s sustainability challenges require balancing economic, social, and environmental priorities. Ethical theories like utilitarianism, the rights approach, and the common good approach offer valuable frameworks to guide companies in adopting sustainable practices while addressing stakeholder needs. A consequentialist approach, such as utilitarianism, focuses on the outcomes of actions to determine their ethical value. In contrast, the common good approach highlights the interdependence of individuals within a community.
Utilitarianism
The ethical principle of utilitarianism asserts that the morally correct action in any situation is the one that creates the greatest overall benefit relative to harm for all parties involved. As long as this action yields the highest positive outcome for everyone, utilitarianism is unconcerned with whether the benefits arise through deception, manipulation, or coercion [7]. In the context of construction, this can mean implementing practices that maximize environmental and societal benefits, even if they come with higher initial costs. However, you can also look at it from a profit-oriented mindset, which would maximize economic benefits while putting sustainable practices as an afterthought and possibly achieving that through deception or coercion, like bribery.
In an article about value-inclusive design by Eric Harris, Anna Franz, and Sabine O’Hara, the authors identify that co-design and community engagement are critical components of the design process, which align closely with utilitarian principles [8]. Co-design is the collaborative process where designers work with community members to create solutions that reflect the needs, desires, and values of the people who will be affected by the design [8]. This approach ensures that the voices of the people who will actually use the space are heard, which empowers the communities to take ownership of their spaces. This empowerment can lead to increased satisfaction, a sense of belonging, and overall well-being. By using this method of co-design, architects and planners can find solutions that address specific community needs and build spaces that are both functional and culturally relevant. However, using this approach of co-design can definitely lead to increased costs. In co-design, one would have to manage diverse opinions and expectations that would both require more resources and extend the timeline of the project, inflating the overall project budget.
From a utilitarian perspective, co-designing is ethically justified because it leads to a more positive outcome for those affected by the construction. For this same reason, sustainable construction practices such as using eco-friendly materials, minimizing waste, and reducing carbon emissions are ethically justified because they protect the environment for future generations. While these practices typically come with increased project costs, their long-term benefits to society outweigh the immediate financial drawbacks. From a utilitarian point of view, taking the immediate financial losses in order to benefit the most people is the correct approach.
Common Good Approach
The common good approach emphasizes the importance of creating and maintaining social policies, systems, institutions, and environments that work towards everyone’s well-being [9]. This approach focuses on benefits that are shared and essential for all members of society; some examples are accessible healthcare, effective law enforcement, environmental protection, and a fair legal system. It encourages us to see ourselves as part of a broader community and to consider what kind of society we aim to build together. While it respects individual freedoms, the common good approach also asks individuals to support and prioritize shared goals that enhance the quality of life for everyone [9].
This approach is relevant in addressing the challenges of affordable housing because the need for equitable and sustainable solutions is predominant. By engaging local communities in the planning and construction processes, the solutions developed are reflective of the community’s needs and values [10]. Housing projects can greatly enhance the overall quality of life for all community members by involving residents in the decision-making, just as the common good approach seeks to do. The emphasis on sustainable construction technologies, such as bio-based materials and efficient industrialized methods, aligns with the common good approach by considering the long-term impacts on both the environment and society [10]. Sustainable housing solutions provide both immediate shelter and promote responsible resource use [10]. The demand for affordable housing, coupled with systemic barriers that prevent low-income communities from accessing safe and adequate living conditions, shows how powerful this approach can be. The common good approach seeks to uplift marginalized populations and reduce societal inequalities by addressing these barriers and advocating for policies that make access to housing equitable.
Rights Approach
According to Immanuel Kant and other philosophers, human dignity stems from individuals’ capacity to make free choices with their lives. The basis of the rights approach is respecting these free choices as a fundamental moral right. There are many rights that exist, and the Markkula Center at Santa Clara University gives the examples of the right to truth, privacy, freedom from harm, and fulfillment of agreements, which are all extensions of this basic respect for personal autonomy. To determine whether an action is moral, one has to consider whether it respects these rights. According to this ethical approach, actions are deemed wrong if they violate an individual’s rights [9].
According to the World Wildlife Fund, people have the “right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment” [11]. Looking at construction from a rights-based approach,
construction projects that disregard environmental preservation can potentially violate that right. The rights approach would require engineers to protect communities from pollution, noise, and other disruptions that come with construction. Engineers honor the rights of individuals by making sure that projects do not compromise public spaces and, in turn, public welfare. Using this approach encourages engineers in construction to consider the broader impact of their work.
For example, the numerous health effects from construction pollution can be broadly categorized as respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological [12]. These effects highlight how important it is for construction engineers to implement sustainable practices that can significantly influence both societal and environmental outcomes. The National Library of Medicine asserts that construction projects expose workers to various respiratory health hazards, including dust, respirable crystalline silica, fumes, and asbestos, leading to significant health issues. Construction workers are at an increased risk of work-related respiratory diseases, with conditions such as cough, dyspnoea, asthma, and lung cancers ranking among the top five reported respiratory diseases. Studies have also shown that construction workers are more likely to report respiratory health diseases compared to non-construction workers, with a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) observed in those with over 10 years of exposure in the sector [13]. Given this data on health effects, pollution regulations, improved construction practices, implementation of pollution monitoring, and training for engineers and construction workers are necessary to protect the people’s right to a clean and safe environment.
Barriers to Ethical Practices in the Construction Industry
Despite the importance of ethics, construction companies struggle to implement sustainable practices due to financial and organizational barriers. Leadership commitment is a significant factor in promoting ethical behavior. Weak leadership and inconsistent communication of ethical codes are major obstacles to ethical practice in construction. Another significant barrier is the lack of effective mechanisms for reporting unethical behavior, which often leads to a culture of silence among employees. Unethical behaviors may also be rarely reported due to close relationships among colleagues, which makes whistleblowing difficult [14]. Additionally, there is typically no response to reported misconduct, and there may not be protections for whistleblowers. This contributes to a common employee fear of speaking out [14]. Time constraints in project completion also pressure employees to deliver results, which can lead to unethical decisions because contractors may prioritize timely delivery over adherence to ethical standards [15]. The same is true for the prioritization of profit maximization, which often supersedes ethical considerations [15]. These barriers collectively hinder the effective implementation of ethics codes and reinforce unethical behavior within the construction sector.
Case Study and the Future
Case studies of past engineering failures highlight the catastrophic consequences of unethical practices. The collapse of the Hyatt Regency walkway in 1981 serves as a reminder of what happens when ethical standards are neglected in the hopes of cutting costs. The disaster was attributed to cost-saving changes suggested by a subcontractor for the fabrication and erection of the atrium’s steel structure. An investigation revealed that the original design barely met the building code requirements, and the modifications made by the subcontractor significantly compromised the structural integrity. The consulting engineer was found negligent for relying too heavily on the subcontractor’s assurances, and this led to severe consequences, including the loss of professional licenses for both the engineer and the consulting firm. This incident highlights the link between unethical behavior and quality failures in construction projects. This tragedy, which resulted in over 100 deaths and over 200 injuries, underscores the need for engineers to prioritize safety and quality, even when pressured to reduce expenses [15].
Looking to the future, the construction industry has to prioritize ethics to prevent tragedies like the Hyatt Regency collapse from happening again. Embracing a strong ethical culture that prioritizes safety, integrity, and accountability will be necessary as projects become more complex and demanding. One promising method that improves ethics in construction is the increased integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) technology. BIM allows for real-time collaboration among architects, engineers, and contractors, which reduces misunderstandings and ensures designs meet all safety and regulatory standards before construction begins [16]. By using BIM, companies can enhance transparency, accountability, and adherence to ethical practices. This minimizes the risk of shortcuts that could jeopardize public safety. This proactive approach, alongside continuous ethics training and clear regulatory guidelines, will be key in cultivating a construction industry that values ethical responsibility and prioritizes sustainable practices.
By Dennis Tran, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California
About the Author:
At the time of writing this paper, Dennis was a senior studying mechanical engineering at USC. He has a strong interest in construction and is interested in working in the construction industry. In his spare time, he likes to play golf and watch movies.
References
[1] K. Simonson, “Construction Data | Associated General Contractors of America,” Agc.org, 2019. https://www.agc.org/learn/construction-data
[2] M. F. Agnello, R. Burgess, and M. M. Darwish, “Incorporating Sustainable Development And Environmental Ethics Into Construction Engineering Education,” Aug. 2010.
[3] American Society of Civil Engineers, “Code of Ethics,” www.asce.org, Oct. 26, 2020. https://www.asce.org/career-growth/ethics/code-of-ethics
[4] A. McGrath and A. Jonker, “What is corporate social responsibility (CSR)? | IBM,” www.ibm.com, 2023. https://www.ibm.com/topics/corporate-social-responsibility
[5] J. Glass and A. R. J. Dainty, “The Sustainable Construction Business: A Missing Ingredient in Creating a Sustainable Built Environment?,” International Journal of Construction Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–18, Jan. 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2011.10773165.
[6] “Most Home Builders are Small Businesses,” www.nahb.org, Jul. 13, 2021. https://www.nahb.org/blog/2021/07/most-home-builders-are-small-businesses
[7] “Calculating Consequences: the Utilitarian Approach to Ethics,” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Aug. 01, 2014. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/
[8] E. Harris, A. Franz, and S. O’Hara, “Promoting Social Equity and Building Resilience through Value-Inclusive Design,” Buildings, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 2081, Aug. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13082081.
[9] Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre,Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer, “Thinking Ethically,” SantaClaraUniv, Aug. 01, 2015. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/thinking-ethically/
[10] H. Wallbaum, Y. Ostermeyer, C. Salzer, and E. Zea Escamilla, “Indicator based sustainability assessment tool for affordable housing construction technologies,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 18, pp. 353–364, Jul. 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.005.
[11] WWF International, “COP 15 – WWF’s Must Haves – rights based approach,” WWF, 2020. https://explore.panda.org/cop15/rightsbased (accessed Nov. 05, 2024)
[12] V. Vyas, “Health Effects of Poor Air Quality in Construction,” Oizom, May 03, 2023. https://oizom.com/health-effects-of-poor-air-quality-in-construction/
[13]E. F. Boadu, S. R. Okeke, C. Boadi, E. O. Bonsu, and I. Y. Addo, “Work-related respiratory health conditions among construction workers: a systematic narrative review,” BMJ Open Respiratory Research, vol. 10, no. 1, p. e001736, Jun. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001736.
[14] C. M.-F. Ho and O. T. Oladinrin, “A Paradigm Shift in the Implementation of Ethics Codes in Construction Organizations in Hong Kong: Towards an Ethical Behaviour,” Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 559–581, Jan. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0026-4.
[15] H. Abdul-Rahman, M. Hanid, and X. W. Yap, “Does professional ethics affect quality of construction – a case in a developing economy?,” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 25, no. 3–4, pp. 235–248, Jul. 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.776764.
[16] D. Migilinskas, V. Popov, V. Juocevicius, and L. Ustinovichius, “The Benefits, Obstacles and Problems of Practical Bim Implementation,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 767–774, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.097.
Further Reading Links