**2. Social responsibilities of the engineering profession**

The engineering profession has a variety of ethical responsibilities to society and the environment. This field of inquiry has recently been termed macroethics [1]. But these professional social responsibilities may be in tension with the business side of engineering [2]. The majority of engineers work for businesses, whose primary motivation is often profit and corporate stockholders, rather than societal impacts. Luckily, this has begun to change based on movement toward corporate social responsibility (CSR) and realizations that companies can thrive economically while considering social and environmental impacts (the triple bottom line). CSR means that companies commit to principles of accountability to community stakeholders, customers, suppliers, employees, and investors. CSR often embraces ideas of sustainability, including human rights and environmental issues, as well as a chain of responsibility and duty of care. Engineering-focused companies often make their commitments to CSR publicly available (e.g., Bechtel [3]).

The characterization of engineering as a profession is also somewhat in tension. Individual licensing of engineers promotes the notion of profession, but industrial exemptions in the licensing laws somewhat erode this independence from employers [4]. Zhu and Jesiek [5] also question whether engineering is a profession in China, based on the lack of an explicit ethical code. It becomes clear when exploring the engineering profession that it should not be viewed as homogeneous, but rather consider that there are distinct cultures in this regard among different sub-disciplines and among countries.

This section presents a few sub-topics related to social responsibility in engineering: human safety, environmental protection and sustainability, pro bono work, social justice, and diversity. The extent to which these elements are included in professional codes of ethics, bodies of knowledge, and requirements for educating engineers are considered to reflect commonly held beliefs related to the social responsibilities of the engineering profession. Further, what a professor chooses to teach engineering students in regards to professional social responsibility has been interpreted as endorsement of the relevance of the topic to the engineering profession. For some topics there is general agreement across engineering sub-disciplines and individuals, while other social responsibilities are being actively debated.

#### **2.1. Human safety**

Public trust in engineering requires that the profession considers its impacts on human safety. There is widespread consensus in the codes of ethics of engineering professional societies worldwide that engineering has a primary duty to protect public safety, health, and welfare [6]. Engineering-related failures or problems that result in injuries or death are often front-page news (e.g., levee failures in New Orleans, interstate bridge collapse in Minnesota, ignition switches in cars) [7, 8]. It is of concern that the accumulated impact of frequent newsworthy incidents may over time erode public trust in engineering.

develops their feelings toward their professional social responsibilities as engineers, and how these values change over time, have been examined. This chapter will highlight the array of

The engineering profession has a variety of ethical responsibilities to society and the environment. This field of inquiry has recently been termed macroethics [1]. But these professional social responsibilities may be in tension with the business side of engineering [2]. The majority of engineers work for businesses, whose primary motivation is often profit and corporate stockholders, rather than societal impacts. Luckily, this has begun to change based on movement toward corporate social responsibility (CSR) and realizations that companies can thrive economically while considering social and environmental impacts (the triple bottom line). CSR means that companies commit to principles of accountability to community stakeholders, customers, suppliers, employees, and investors. CSR often embraces ideas of sustainability, including human rights and environmental issues, as well as a chain of responsibility and duty of care. Engineering-focused companies often make their commitments to CSR publicly

The characterization of engineering as a profession is also somewhat in tension. Individual licensing of engineers promotes the notion of profession, but industrial exemptions in the licensing laws somewhat erode this independence from employers [4]. Zhu and Jesiek [5] also question whether engineering is a profession in China, based on the lack of an explicit ethical code. It becomes clear when exploring the engineering profession that it should not be viewed as homogeneous, but rather consider that there are distinct cultures in this regard among dif-

This section presents a few sub-topics related to social responsibility in engineering: human safety, environmental protection and sustainability, pro bono work, social justice, and diversity. The extent to which these elements are included in professional codes of ethics, bodies of knowledge, and requirements for educating engineers are considered to reflect commonly held beliefs related to the social responsibilities of the engineering profession. Further, what a professor chooses to teach engineering students in regards to professional social responsibility has been interpreted as endorsement of the relevance of the topic to the engineering profession. For some topics there is general agreement across engineering sub-disciplines and

Public trust in engineering requires that the profession considers its impacts on human safety. There is widespread consensus in the codes of ethics of engineering professional societies worldwide that engineering has a primary duty to protect public safety, health, and welfare [6]. Engineering-related failures or problems that result in injuries or death are often

individuals, while other social responsibilities are being actively debated.

opinions and recent research into these areas.

42 Social Responsibility

available (e.g., Bechtel [3]).

**2.1. Human safety**

ferent sub-disciplines and among countries.

**2. Social responsibilities of the engineering profession**

Although generally "bundled," health, safety, and welfare each have particular nuances. Vesilind [9] notes that there may be instances when these three elements differ, both in fact and among the perceptions of various groups within the public. Further, the public should not be viewed as a monolith, but rather engineers need to be aware of "diverse publics" with different needs and goals [10, 11].

Health is generally characterized as being able to function physically without pain, and may also include mental soundness. Promoting health is a direct goal of biomedical engineering. Environmental and civil engineers are tasked with providing clean drinking water and preventing the spread of toxic chemicals via air, water, and soil. Chemical engineering is involved in manufacturing medicines, as well as pesticides and other chemicals that may have toxic effects. Thinking specifically about health-related issues is perhaps less prevalent in other engineering disciplines. One challenge is the uncertainty that surrounds what is in fact protective of human health, given incomplete toxicological information and difficulties evaluating chronic effects (e.g., cancer). Different countries have different paradigms regulating the development, distribution, and use of new chemicals with regards to the information that is required on human health effects, with some taking a more precautionary approach [12]. Further, US drinking water regulations take into account both human health and treatment costs. Overall, engineers may disagree on what conditions sufficiently protect human health.

Safety is associated being protected from physical injuries or death, again considering risks. Thus, civil engineering infrastructure that will be safe in the face of hurricanes or earthquakes, construction engineering to protect on-site workers, mechanical engineering of cars to protect occupants during crashes, etc. Other engineering disciplines are also critically important to safety but as sub-systems may garner less attention (such as software engineering for computer controls or electrical engineering). However, public safety broadly applies to all engineering disciplines. The International Education Association knowledge profile for a Washington Accord Program includes "comprehension of… the professional responsibility of an engineer to public safety" [13]. Disciplinary differences within engineering in the extent that students are taught about safety in their courses were found in a study of engineering educators; among ~1400 survey respondents (96% from institutions in the US), 44% taught engineering/computing students about safety in their courses. However, this varied from 76% in chemical engineering to 26% in computing [14]. Safety is included explicitly as a cognitive "cross-functional" outcome within the Chemical Engineering Body of Knowledge [15].

Welfare relates to overall well-being, potentially inclusive of happiness, health, material wealth, and feelings of security. Thus, welfare is more subjective than health or safety, and is correspondingly harder to measure. While protection of human or public welfare is a common statement in US codes of engineering ethics [16, 17], this term is not included in some international ethics codes [18–20]. The Australia code uses the term "wellbeing" in place of welfare [18]. The Royal Academy of Engineering's (RAE) Statement of Ethical Principles [20] includes "public good," separate from the "health and safety" paramountcy clause. The Chemical Engineering Body of Knowledge [15] lists "concern for public welfare" among its affective domain outcomes. It is clear that engineers may have different notions of welfare than individuals within the public. Vesilind [9] gives the examples of engineers reducing speed limits on highways to 55 miles per hour to provide increased safety, but having the majority of the public believe their overall welfare was better served by higher limits that enabled them to reach their destinations more efficiently.

There has been a recent debate about how engineers can best serve this most basic mandate to protect human health and safety. One environmental scientist/engineer, Sedlak, accused others of "crossing the line" from dispassionate researcher to being activists [7]. Sedlak (trained as an environmental scientist, but a professor of civil and environmental engineering for over 20 years) called into question Prof. Marc Edwards (MS/PhD civil engineering) and his involvement in the Flint, Michigan, lead crisis, and Daniel Carder (BS/MS mechanical engineering) who helped expose the Volkswagen emission problem. Edwards and Carder likely perceived it as their social responsibility as engineers to uphold the preeminent requirement to protect human health and safety [21, 22], and acted in compliance with the engineering codes of ethics to expose ethical wrong-doing (e.g., ASCE Canon 1d [17]). In response to Sedlak's editorial, a number of individuals shared differing views on the professional responsibilities of environmental engineering and science as related to the public [23–28]. There are perhaps differences in the social responsibilities of engineers and scientists, and the extent to which individuals identify with these disciplines ([24] written by a licensed professional engineer, [36] a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, [25, 27] members of the National Academy of Engineers, [23, 25, 28] degrees in chemistry). An individual's personal identity with respect to their profession may be significant in how they perceive their social responsibilities.

Engineers' social responsibility for environmental protection may originate from different ethical frameworks [38]. From an anthropocentric framework, one may simply understand that preservation of the environment is ultimately self-preservation for human life. Alternatively, from a biocentric perspective one may recognize the intrinsic right to life of all organisms on the planet. The environment and ecology may be viewed to have distinct value, beyond that

**Table 1.** Inclusion of environmental protection and sustainability responsibilities in the code of ethics from different

**protection**

Engineering [29] The Netherlands Yes (Long term effect on society and/or

Engineering [20] UK Yes (Succeeding generations, natural resources,

**Sustainability or sustainable development**

Professional Social Responsibility in Engineering http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73785 45

public good)

environment)

A more limited sub-group of countries and engineering disciplines include sustainability and/or sustainable development within their code of ethics (**Table 1**). Australia's code shows a commitment to sustainability in the first sentence of the preamble statement, "use of knowledge and skills for the benefit of the community to create engineering solutions for a sustainable future," and "promote sustainability" is one of the four key statements of ethical practice [18]. In fact, the mandate to protect the "health, safety and wellbeing of the community" is placed under the heading of promoting sustainability. Sustainability knowledge or abilities are included as stand-alone outcomes within the bodies of knowledge for US chemical, civil, environmental, and professional engineers [15, 39–41]. Sustainable design and development as a social responsibility of engineers has been endorsed by many scholars around the

One issue may be the lack of consensus on the meaning of the term sustainability or sustainable development. In general, sustainability includes considerations of both current conditions and future generations, crossing environmental, societal, and economic elements. Sustainability

of maintaining human existence.

disciplines and countries.

**Discipline(s) Country/countries Environmental** 

Engineering [16] USA Yes Yes

Engineering [18] Australia Yes Yes

Engineering [19] New Zealand Yes Yes Engineering [30] India Yes No Aerospace [31] USA No No Biomedical [32] Global No No Chemical [33] USA Yes No Civil [17] USA Yes Yes Electrical [34] Global Yes Yes Mechanical [35] USA Yes Yes

globe [42–45].

#### **2.2. Environment and sustainability**

Engineering codes of ethics include environmental protection among professional social responsibilities (**Table 1**), with the exception of some specialized sub-disciplines (biomedical and aerospace engineering). "Comprehension of the impacts of engineering activity: … environmental" is one of the knowledge outcomes of a Washington Accord Program [13]. Environmental considerations in the engineering design process have also been explicitly required for accredited engineering degrees under ABET (Criterion 3, Outcome 2 [36]). Despite widespread inclusion in codes of ethics and professional education requirements, environmental protection issues do not appear to be an equally prevalent focus of different disciplines within engineering. In a study of engineering educators, an average of 32% of the ~1400 survey respondents taught engineering/computing students about environmental issues, ranging from a high of 76% in environmental engineering to a low of 6% in computing [14]. Among 180 engineering educators in the study by Romkey [37], the average implementation of "I encourage students to consider the potential environmental impact of technology" was 2.49 (where 2 = sometimes and 3 = often on a 1–4 scale). Internationally, commitments to environmental protection are generally considered to be somewhat stronger in the EU versus the US.


welfare [18]. The Royal Academy of Engineering's (RAE) Statement of Ethical Principles [20] includes "public good," separate from the "health and safety" paramountcy clause. The Chemical Engineering Body of Knowledge [15] lists "concern for public welfare" among its affective domain outcomes. It is clear that engineers may have different notions of welfare than individuals within the public. Vesilind [9] gives the examples of engineers reducing speed limits on highways to 55 miles per hour to provide increased safety, but having the majority of the public believe their overall welfare was better served by higher limits that

There has been a recent debate about how engineers can best serve this most basic mandate to protect human health and safety. One environmental scientist/engineer, Sedlak, accused others of "crossing the line" from dispassionate researcher to being activists [7]. Sedlak (trained as an environmental scientist, but a professor of civil and environmental engineering for over 20 years) called into question Prof. Marc Edwards (MS/PhD civil engineering) and his involvement in the Flint, Michigan, lead crisis, and Daniel Carder (BS/MS mechanical engineering) who helped expose the Volkswagen emission problem. Edwards and Carder likely perceived it as their social responsibility as engineers to uphold the preeminent requirement to protect human health and safety [21, 22], and acted in compliance with the engineering codes of ethics to expose ethical wrong-doing (e.g., ASCE Canon 1d [17]). In response to Sedlak's editorial, a number of individuals shared differing views on the professional responsibilities of environmental engineering and science as related to the public [23–28]. There are perhaps differences in the social responsibilities of engineers and scientists, and the extent to which individuals identify with these disciplines ([24] written by a licensed professional engineer, [36] a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, [25, 27] members of the National Academy of Engineers, [23, 25, 28] degrees in chemistry). An individual's personal identity with respect to

their profession may be significant in how they perceive their social responsibilities.

protection are generally considered to be somewhat stronger in the EU versus the US.

Engineering codes of ethics include environmental protection among professional social responsibilities (**Table 1**), with the exception of some specialized sub-disciplines (biomedical and aerospace engineering). "Comprehension of the impacts of engineering activity: … environmental" is one of the knowledge outcomes of a Washington Accord Program [13]. Environmental considerations in the engineering design process have also been explicitly required for accredited engineering degrees under ABET (Criterion 3, Outcome 2 [36]). Despite widespread inclusion in codes of ethics and professional education requirements, environmental protection issues do not appear to be an equally prevalent focus of different disciplines within engineering. In a study of engineering educators, an average of 32% of the ~1400 survey respondents taught engineering/computing students about environmental issues, ranging from a high of 76% in environmental engineering to a low of 6% in computing [14]. Among 180 engineering educators in the study by Romkey [37], the average implementation of "I encourage students to consider the potential environmental impact of technology" was 2.49 (where 2 = sometimes and 3 = often on a 1–4 scale). Internationally, commitments to environmental

enabled them to reach their destinations more efficiently.

44 Social Responsibility

**2.2. Environment and sustainability**

**Table 1.** Inclusion of environmental protection and sustainability responsibilities in the code of ethics from different disciplines and countries.

Engineers' social responsibility for environmental protection may originate from different ethical frameworks [38]. From an anthropocentric framework, one may simply understand that preservation of the environment is ultimately self-preservation for human life. Alternatively, from a biocentric perspective one may recognize the intrinsic right to life of all organisms on the planet. The environment and ecology may be viewed to have distinct value, beyond that of maintaining human existence.

A more limited sub-group of countries and engineering disciplines include sustainability and/or sustainable development within their code of ethics (**Table 1**). Australia's code shows a commitment to sustainability in the first sentence of the preamble statement, "use of knowledge and skills for the benefit of the community to create engineering solutions for a sustainable future," and "promote sustainability" is one of the four key statements of ethical practice [18]. In fact, the mandate to protect the "health, safety and wellbeing of the community" is placed under the heading of promoting sustainability. Sustainability knowledge or abilities are included as stand-alone outcomes within the bodies of knowledge for US chemical, civil, environmental, and professional engineers [15, 39–41]. Sustainable design and development as a social responsibility of engineers has been endorsed by many scholars around the globe [42–45].

One issue may be the lack of consensus on the meaning of the term sustainability or sustainable development. In general, sustainability includes considerations of both current conditions and future generations, crossing environmental, societal, and economic elements. Sustainability is included in the educational requirements for engineers under the Washington Accord outcomes [13]. In contrast, sustainability is not explicitly required in engineering education under ABET, which accredits the majority of the programs in the US and additional programs across 30 countries. Sustainability is mentioned as a potential consideration in the engineering design process under both the old ABET EC2000 criteria and the new requirements [36, 46]. The new requirements do include considerations of "global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts" within the ethics outcome, but these considerations might be primarily immediate versus long term. Interestingly, more faculty indicated that they teach engineering/computing students about sustainability (42%) as compared to environmental impacts (32%), ranging from 74% in environmental engineering to 15% in biomedical engineering [14].

In a small study (methods described in [8]), working engineers were asked in a survey to rate their agreement with the statement "Engineering firms should take on some pro bono work." Among the 465 respondents, 12% disagreed, 21% were neutral, and 68% agreed; 49% of the survey respondents had recently graduated (within 1 to 2 years) with an engineering degree from a US institution and 27% of the respondents were members of EWB-USA. Differences in opinions were found based on gender (females higher average agreement), discipline (environmental higher agreement than mechanical), and years since earned Bachelor's degree (higher agreement for those who earned degree 6 or more years prior). By comparison, responses from US engineering students (n = 4191, 17 institutions, all ranks and majors, 2011–2014) to the same question were: 11% disagree, 34% neutral, 55% agree (Bielefeldt unpublished data, combined from studies described in [53–55]). Thus, among both engineering students and professionals the majority agreed to some extent that engineering firms should take on pro

Professional Social Responsibility in Engineering http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73785 47

In Australia, the University of Technology Sydney studied the attitudes of their students toward pro bono engineering. Based on a report that students were required to submit after their first internship, it was found that: 20% poorly engaged with the pro bono aspect of the assignment, 10% had not considered pro bono before, 10% acknowledged little knowledge of pro bono in engineering, 30% focused on what they could get out of pro bono work, 20% indicated they might engage in pro bono work in the future, and only 10% showed a clear

Engineering service groups comprised of volunteers are becoming more popular. A prime example is EWB-USA which works to help meet the basic needs of global communities. In 2015, EWB-USA reported 16,800 members in 288 chapters [56]. These chapters include both student chapters (typically affiliated with a university or college) and professional chapters. This is a large number of engineering students/ professionals engaged in donating their time to help others through engineering. EWB International (EWB-I) has 65 organizations that are part of its network [57]. EWB-Australia is particularly active; in 2015–2016 they reported 3275 members/friends, plus 30 university partners with 9513 students engaged in an EWB challenge activity, and 13,000 students engaged via their school outreach program [58]. They state, "our EWB Connect initiative has been pioneering the creation of a pro bono engineering culture across the profession." [58, p. 4]. Other examples of pro bono focused engineering service groups include Bridges to Prosperity, Engineering World Health, and the Community Engineering Corps (an alliance of ASCE, EWB-USA, and the American Water

In engineering education, pro bono work can take the form of service-learning or Learning through Service, also termed community engagement [59, 60]. VanderSteen et al. [61] discussed humanitarian service-learning projects locally (in Canada) and abroad (Ghana); both appeared to have impacted students' views of socially responsible engineering. Linkages between community engagement activities among US engineering students and professional social responsibility attitudes were found in a large study [62]. As well, engineering faculty believe that students learn about ethics and societal impact issues via community engagement

bono work.

Works Association).

activities [63].

intention to be involved in pro bono work [51].

#### **2.3. Pro bono**

The idea of pro bono work is that professions should donate some of their technical expertise to individuals or organizations unable to pay for those services. This can be providing services for free or at a reduced rate. While this is commonplace in professions such a law and medicine [47], the idea just seems to be starting to grow in engineering and is by no means universal [6]. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) first approved a policy statement on pro bono services in 1996 [48], encouraging engineers *as individuals* to provide services to charitable causes and in emergency situations; however, its real purpose appears directed at liability issues and indemnification. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) has a policy statement pertaining to liability of "good samaritans" who volunteer their engineering services upon request in times of crisis [49].

Within the codes of ethics for engineering, hints of commitment to pro bono service can be found. The NSPE code [16] states that "Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs; career guidance for youths; and work for the advancement of the safety, health, and wellbeing of their community"; a similar statement is found in [31]. The ASCE code [17] states that "engineers should seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for…their communities." However, the mandate for pro bono activity is unclear.

Riley and Lambrinidou [11] suggest that pro bono service should comprise at least 5% of the employed hours of engineers. Interviews with working engineers found that some engineering companies allow donating standard work hours to engineering service, such as to groups like Engineers Without Borders (EWB)-USA [50]. Moulton [51] asserts, "An enormous amount of software development/support is done at low or no cost, for example, public help forums and much of the work toward Open Source/Linux/GNU etc." (p. 334).

In a study of pro bono engineering in Australia in 2011 [52], a high demand for pro bono engineering, reasons for engaging in pro bono activities, benefits from pro bono activities, and challenges were documented. A sense of professional responsibility was identified among the motivations for participating in pro bono activities in engineering. While providing rich information and detailed case studies, the research left unanswered questions such as what percentage of engineering companies or individuals engage in pro bono activities, and to what extent (hours per year).

In a small study (methods described in [8]), working engineers were asked in a survey to rate their agreement with the statement "Engineering firms should take on some pro bono work." Among the 465 respondents, 12% disagreed, 21% were neutral, and 68% agreed; 49% of the survey respondents had recently graduated (within 1 to 2 years) with an engineering degree from a US institution and 27% of the respondents were members of EWB-USA. Differences in opinions were found based on gender (females higher average agreement), discipline (environmental higher agreement than mechanical), and years since earned Bachelor's degree (higher agreement for those who earned degree 6 or more years prior). By comparison, responses from US engineering students (n = 4191, 17 institutions, all ranks and majors, 2011–2014) to the same question were: 11% disagree, 34% neutral, 55% agree (Bielefeldt unpublished data, combined from studies described in [53–55]). Thus, among both engineering students and professionals the majority agreed to some extent that engineering firms should take on pro bono work.

is included in the educational requirements for engineers under the Washington Accord outcomes [13]. In contrast, sustainability is not explicitly required in engineering education under ABET, which accredits the majority of the programs in the US and additional programs across 30 countries. Sustainability is mentioned as a potential consideration in the engineering design process under both the old ABET EC2000 criteria and the new requirements [36, 46]. The new requirements do include considerations of "global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts" within the ethics outcome, but these considerations might be primarily immediate versus long term. Interestingly, more faculty indicated that they teach engineering/computing students about sustainability (42%) as compared to environmental impacts (32%), ranging from 74% in environmental engineering to 15% in biomedical engineering [14].

The idea of pro bono work is that professions should donate some of their technical expertise to individuals or organizations unable to pay for those services. This can be providing services for free or at a reduced rate. While this is commonplace in professions such a law and medicine [47], the idea just seems to be starting to grow in engineering and is by no means universal [6]. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) first approved a policy statement on pro bono services in 1996 [48], encouraging engineers *as individuals* to provide services to charitable causes and in emergency situations; however, its real purpose appears directed at liability issues and indemnification. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) has a policy statement pertaining to liability of "good samaritans" who volunteer their engi-

Within the codes of ethics for engineering, hints of commitment to pro bono service can be found. The NSPE code [16] states that "Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs; career guidance for youths; and work for the advancement of the safety, health, and wellbeing of their community"; a similar statement is found in [31]. The ASCE code [17] states that "engineers should seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work

Riley and Lambrinidou [11] suggest that pro bono service should comprise at least 5% of the employed hours of engineers. Interviews with working engineers found that some engineering companies allow donating standard work hours to engineering service, such as to groups like Engineers Without Borders (EWB)-USA [50]. Moulton [51] asserts, "An enormous amount of software development/support is done at low or no cost, for example, public help forums

In a study of pro bono engineering in Australia in 2011 [52], a high demand for pro bono engineering, reasons for engaging in pro bono activities, benefits from pro bono activities, and challenges were documented. A sense of professional responsibility was identified among the motivations for participating in pro bono activities in engineering. While providing rich information and detailed case studies, the research left unanswered questions such as what percentage of engineering companies or individuals engage in pro bono activities, and to

for…their communities." However, the mandate for pro bono activity is unclear.

and much of the work toward Open Source/Linux/GNU etc." (p. 334).

**2.3. Pro bono**

46 Social Responsibility

neering services upon request in times of crisis [49].

what extent (hours per year).

In Australia, the University of Technology Sydney studied the attitudes of their students toward pro bono engineering. Based on a report that students were required to submit after their first internship, it was found that: 20% poorly engaged with the pro bono aspect of the assignment, 10% had not considered pro bono before, 10% acknowledged little knowledge of pro bono in engineering, 30% focused on what they could get out of pro bono work, 20% indicated they might engage in pro bono work in the future, and only 10% showed a clear intention to be involved in pro bono work [51].

Engineering service groups comprised of volunteers are becoming more popular. A prime example is EWB-USA which works to help meet the basic needs of global communities. In 2015, EWB-USA reported 16,800 members in 288 chapters [56]. These chapters include both student chapters (typically affiliated with a university or college) and professional chapters. This is a large number of engineering students/ professionals engaged in donating their time to help others through engineering. EWB International (EWB-I) has 65 organizations that are part of its network [57]. EWB-Australia is particularly active; in 2015–2016 they reported 3275 members/friends, plus 30 university partners with 9513 students engaged in an EWB challenge activity, and 13,000 students engaged via their school outreach program [58]. They state, "our EWB Connect initiative has been pioneering the creation of a pro bono engineering culture across the profession." [58, p. 4]. Other examples of pro bono focused engineering service groups include Bridges to Prosperity, Engineering World Health, and the Community Engineering Corps (an alliance of ASCE, EWB-USA, and the American Water Works Association).

In engineering education, pro bono work can take the form of service-learning or Learning through Service, also termed community engagement [59, 60]. VanderSteen et al. [61] discussed humanitarian service-learning projects locally (in Canada) and abroad (Ghana); both appeared to have impacted students' views of socially responsible engineering. Linkages between community engagement activities among US engineering students and professional social responsibility attitudes were found in a large study [62]. As well, engineering faculty believe that students learn about ethics and societal impact issues via community engagement activities [63].

#### **2.4. Social justice**

Social justice relates to the distribution of wealth and privileges in society, as well as issues related to poverty and development. There are a growing number of advocates that engineering social responsibility encompasses social justice issues, including engineering faculty in the US [64, 65], Australia [66], Finland [67], and Colombia [68]. A group devoted to this issue, Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace (ESJP), routinely hosts a conference. But there are also naysayers [69–72], and the majority of the public comments posted with these articles were against social justice education for engineers. For example, one commenter noted "Employers will shun engineers who they suspect may have been indoctrinated with social justice ideas. In short, SJW ideology is a highly destructive virus" [71]. The robust number of comments posted with these essays speaks to their controversial nature; for example, 279 comments on the Washington Times article [72].

Many have asserted that the majority of engineering activities are devoted to benefitting the wealthiest on the planet, versus devoting attention to the large percentage of the global population that survives at a near subsistence level. Engineering education programs to address these concerns in the US include the D80 center at Michigan Technological University [73], the Engineering for Developing Communities Program at the University of Colorado Boulder [74], and a number of other programs [75]. There are also similar programs in Spain [76] and Canada [61].

There does not appear to be widespread formal education of engineering students about social justice and/or poverty issues; only 17% and 15% of engineering faculty taught these topics in courses, respectively [14]. However, these topics are reasonably pervasive in cocurricular engineering service groups (such as EWB-USA). Among faculty mentors of engineering service groups, 90% felt students learned about engineering and poverty and 47% felt students learned about social justice.

requirement for engineering graduates [20, 46]. However, diversity concerns, like social jus-

Electrical [34] Global "…treat fairly all persons and to not engage in acts of discrimination based on

Another important issue with respect to diversity is the extent to which the profession fairly compensates workers, without regard to gender, race/ethnicity, etc. In India, female engineering/computing workers generally earn less than male counterparts [80]. Cech [81] found that wage differences by gender in engineering within the US might be partially accounted for based on the nature of the work being done with respect to a technical:social dualism hypothesis. It was found that women were more represented among less "technical" sub-disciplines

An individual's perceptions of their social responsibilities as engineers will develop over time via the process of professional socialization. The professional socialization process begins with novice views of the engineering profession. These informal influences may include messages from media (e.g., movies, news, books), family or acquaintances (e.g., parent an engineer), and school (primary and secondary). Some students' pro-social motivations are a driver for their decision to major in engineering [54, 82]. This aligns with efforts to market the social benefits

tice, are not universally embraced as being relevant to engineering [71].

**Discipline Country Engineering ethics code text related to diversity**

Engineering [20] UK "Promote equality, diversity and inclusion"

Aerospace [31] USA Treat co-workers "fairly and respectfully"

Engineering [16] USA (None)

Engineering [29] The Netherlands (None)

Biomedical [32] Global (None)

Mechanical [35] USA (None)

**Table 2.** Diversity-related issues in engineering codes of ethics.

Engineering [18] Australia "1.3 Respect the dignity of all persons. (A) treat others… without

in engineering leadership"

Engineering [30] India "Treat fairly all persons regardless of race, caste, religion, gender…"

Chemical [33] USA "Never tolerate harassment"; "treat all colleagues and co-workers fairly

Civil [17] USA "Treat all persons fairly and encourage equitable participation, without

discrimination… (b) …without bias in respect of race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, marital or family status, national origin, or mental or physical handicaps; 3.2 Support and encourage diversity; (b) promote diversity

Professional Social Responsibility in Engineering http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73785 49

and respectfully, recognizing their unique contributions and capabilities by

regard to gender, race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, age,.… consider the

race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, …."

fostering an environment of equity, diversity, and inclusion"

diversity of the community, and… include diverse perspectives"

in engineering and among more social tasks in engineering.

**3. Individual social responsibility development**

#### **2.5. Diversity**

There are a number of diversity-related issues in engineering. A primary issue is the persistent lack of diversity within the engineering workforce in the United States and many other parts of the world, which is predominated by men and generally lacks racial/ethnic diversity. Other "non-visible" diversity issues relate to socio-economic status (low income individuals underrepresented), cognitive and personality types, etc. [77]. The lack of diversity in the engineering profession is also found in engineering education. Implicit bias and a chilly climate are often cited as potential reasons for the lack of diversity within the engineering profession. It has been argued that this lack of diversity is detrimental to engineering and limits the ability of engineering to best fulfill its mandate to benefit society [77, 78]. It is unclear if one of the social responsibilities of the engineering profession relates to employing the diversity of individuals in society. Statements related to diversity in engineering codes of ethics are summarized in **Table 2**. Generally, these relate to avoiding discriminatory treatment, but the Australia [27] and the UK [29] codes also include language to promote/support diversity. Most recently in the summer of 2017, the ASCE updated its code of ethics to include provisions related to diversity [79]. The ability to work effectively in diverse teams is an explicitly acknowledged


**Table 2.** Diversity-related issues in engineering codes of ethics.

**2.4. Social justice**

48 Social Responsibility

Canada [61].

**2.5. Diversity**

the Washington Times article [72].

students learned about social justice.

Social justice relates to the distribution of wealth and privileges in society, as well as issues related to poverty and development. There are a growing number of advocates that engineering social responsibility encompasses social justice issues, including engineering faculty in the US [64, 65], Australia [66], Finland [67], and Colombia [68]. A group devoted to this issue, Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace (ESJP), routinely hosts a conference. But there are also naysayers [69–72], and the majority of the public comments posted with these articles were against social justice education for engineers. For example, one commenter noted "Employers will shun engineers who they suspect may have been indoctrinated with social justice ideas. In short, SJW ideology is a highly destructive virus" [71]. The robust number of comments posted with these essays speaks to their controversial nature; for example, 279 comments on

Many have asserted that the majority of engineering activities are devoted to benefitting the wealthiest on the planet, versus devoting attention to the large percentage of the global population that survives at a near subsistence level. Engineering education programs to address these concerns in the US include the D80 center at Michigan Technological University [73], the Engineering for Developing Communities Program at the University of Colorado Boulder [74], and a number of other programs [75]. There are also similar programs in Spain [76] and

There does not appear to be widespread formal education of engineering students about social justice and/or poverty issues; only 17% and 15% of engineering faculty taught these topics in courses, respectively [14]. However, these topics are reasonably pervasive in cocurricular engineering service groups (such as EWB-USA). Among faculty mentors of engineering service groups, 90% felt students learned about engineering and poverty and 47% felt

There are a number of diversity-related issues in engineering. A primary issue is the persistent lack of diversity within the engineering workforce in the United States and many other parts of the world, which is predominated by men and generally lacks racial/ethnic diversity. Other "non-visible" diversity issues relate to socio-economic status (low income individuals underrepresented), cognitive and personality types, etc. [77]. The lack of diversity in the engineering profession is also found in engineering education. Implicit bias and a chilly climate are often cited as potential reasons for the lack of diversity within the engineering profession. It has been argued that this lack of diversity is detrimental to engineering and limits the ability of engineering to best fulfill its mandate to benefit society [77, 78]. It is unclear if one of the social responsibilities of the engineering profession relates to employing the diversity of individuals in society. Statements related to diversity in engineering codes of ethics are summarized in **Table 2**. Generally, these relate to avoiding discriminatory treatment, but the Australia [27] and the UK [29] codes also include language to promote/support diversity. Most recently in the summer of 2017, the ASCE updated its code of ethics to include provisions related to diversity [79]. The ability to work effectively in diverse teams is an explicitly acknowledged requirement for engineering graduates [20, 46]. However, diversity concerns, like social justice, are not universally embraced as being relevant to engineering [71].

Another important issue with respect to diversity is the extent to which the profession fairly compensates workers, without regard to gender, race/ethnicity, etc. In India, female engineering/computing workers generally earn less than male counterparts [80]. Cech [81] found that wage differences by gender in engineering within the US might be partially accounted for based on the nature of the work being done with respect to a technical:social dualism hypothesis. It was found that women were more represented among less "technical" sub-disciplines in engineering and among more social tasks in engineering.
