Civil Engineering March 2021 | Vol 29 No 2

Civil Engineering March 2021 11 Davis is quick to dismiss trite alternatives that contrast the engineer’s responsibility to manage things with the manager’s re- sponsibility to manage people. This con- trast would set engineering against social and environmental interest. Instead, he positions the necessity of prioritising the engineering code of conduct as key to making ethically substantiated decisions. SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT This analysis is particularly valuable at this time in South Africa, where the norms and values of decision-making may be seen to be suspended or undermined by the imperatives of emergency planning to cope with an unprecedented threat. It throws into profile the why of decision- making as well as the how and the what . It profiles the different roles individuals play within organisations and identifies ways in which the carrying out of these roles can highlight conflicts of values that underscore ethical dilemmas and result in potential conflicts of interest. As the South African government is challenged to make rapid decisions while they grapple with their role in minimising the impact of the viral threat, differences in ideological and value frameworks are evident. These differences create stress lines that impact the environment in which the engineer practices. The rational for choice affecting decision-making needs to be made more explicit. Industry and civil society need to be equipped to engage with and respond to these debates in ways that both comply with profes- sional mandates and national imperatives. Within engineering in South Africa, the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) has the overarching legislative mandate to regulate the engineering profession. This mandate is envisaged to be achieved with the active sup- port and contribution of the various engineering councils. ECSA outlines its own vision in several overarching objectives and promulgates a code of conduct that covers areas including competency, integrity, public interest, environment, as well as upholding the dignity of the profession and principles relating to administrative efficiency (ECSA 2017). These areas are seen to cut across the specific focus areas of the various engineering disciplines and to give strategic direction for engineering as a profession. Practical support for these objectives may be identified as particu- larly important during times of crisis. How that practical support is conceptual- ised needs to be explored. This can be achieved by looking at particular examples of professional codes that add substantially to the vision of the ECSA Code of Conduct. Within the civil engineering community in South Africa, Davis’ challenge provides the specific op- portunity to reconnect with the spirit and the intent of the SAICE Code of Ethics. SAICE CODE OF ETHICS The SAICE Code of Ethics distinguishes itself from a code of conduct in that it purports to provide a framework for decision-making beyond prescribing specific action or conduct. It aims to provide a scaffold for evaluating between competing or alternative courses of action that require the application of judgment, more than that required by compliance. SAICE’s code delineates ethical judgment as going beyond the undue imposition of formal regulations for every act. It requires engineers to consider the action required of them and their organisations to ensure the upholding of the ethical values laid out within the code. It is useful to examine the function of the different sections of the SAICE Code of Ethics. Starting with a definition of the civil engineering profession, it moves to a justification of the code of ethics and then defines the goal of the code. The two sec- tions that follow look at ethical values and guidelines and are intended to provide a structure for decision-making where there are competing interests and alternatives. The code of ethics may thus be seen to go beyond prescribing specific conduct to supporting the exercise of judgment. In line with the ECSA Code of Conduct requirements to support the dignity of the profession, the exercise of judgment needs to be positioned as both an individual and a professional responsibility. In times of crisis, engineers need to operate as both engineers and managers. Responses by the civil engineering com- munity to the challenges of Covid-19 will necessarily be varied. However, engineers must take cognisance of their responsibilities both as individuals and as professionals. The SAICE Code of Ethics is positioned as a framework for supporting decision-making in complex circum- stances. The response of different parties within the civil engineering sector can, and indeed should, be evaluated in terms of the guidelines and values of the code of ethics. Within a pandemic, the management of staff and resources is particularly demanding and requires the use of processes and systems in ways that are innovative. ‘Safety first’ is a responsibility that may have ramifications long after the pandemic is over. There are major deci- sions to be taken to safeguard the health of workers and professionals in the work environment. There are likely to be ad- ditional levels of long-term responsibility involving those with whom workers and professionals have contact: both in rela- tion to commercial and service contracts and family responsibilities. Engineers play varied roles and in times of crisis the requirement to act ethically has resonance beyond the direct areas of engineering responsibility or competence. Systems to enhance the financial account- ability of clients and the safe conduct of employees may emerge as significant areas for innovation to ensure that engineers continue to play a significant role contrib- uting to the transformation of the environ- ment in environmentally and socially sustainable ways, applying skill, judgement, and initiative to contribute positively to the well-being of society. As new routes are traversed in engi- neering, both the SAICE Code of Ethics and the ECSA Code of Conduct need to be engaged with new rigour to provide important parameters for assessing decision-making as professionals in the challenging times ahead.  REFERENCES Davis, M. 1991. Thinking like an engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession. Philosophy & Public Affairs , Vol. 20, No. 2 (Spring, 1991), pp. 150-167. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/2265293 . Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), 2017. Code of Conduct. Engineering Professions Act No. 46 of 2000. (2017). Government Gazette . 142(40691). 17 March. Government notice 41. Cape Town: Government Printer. Accessed: 10/01/2021 at https://www.ecsa.co.za/regulation/ RegulationDocs/Code_of_Conduct.pdf . South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE). 2017. Code of Ethics . Accessed 10/01/2021 at http://saice.org.za/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/SAICE-Code- of-Ethics.pdf .