The Engineering Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering have chosen Chartered Week (23–27 February) to publish an update of their joint Statement on Ethical Principles for the engineering profession, first published over 20 years ago.
Ethical commitments are at the heart of the role of a registered engineer or technician – and everyone who works in engineering. The refreshed Statement reflects the changing technology environment and the new challenges faced by engineering professionals today.
The Statement considers developments in professional practice, in the wider technology environment, and in society’s expectations more broadly. An important new fifth ethical principle has been added, focusing on engineering professionals’ responsibility for the future of technology, society, and the environment – particularly in an era of fast-moving technological change. Rapidly developing technologies such as AI have potentially transformative impacts, and ethical issues arise in their development and adoption. This new principle highlights the duty of engineers and technicians to develop these technologies responsibly, with awareness of the lasting system consequences for humankind, including intergenerational impacts.
The Statement’s five fundamental principles for ethical behaviour and decision-making are designed to apply to all engineering professionals and form the core of the specific codes of conduct set out by the individual professional engineering institutions.
The five ethical principles outlined are:
Honesty and integrity, avoiding knowingly misleading others and taking steps to prevent corrupt practices, including plagiarism, misinformation and false representation.
Responsibility to society, including reporting malpractice and irresponsible or unsafe practice, whether within the workplace or outside.
Accuracy and rigour, actively maintaining and enhancing knowledge, skills and competence and supporting others to do the same.
Leadership and communication, fostering a culture where concerns can be raised without fear of reprisal, and acting on well-founded concerns.
Responsibility for the future of technology, society, and the environment, anticipating wider and emergent consequences, and potential for misuse of technologies, and applying precaution proportionately where potential harms are serious or irreversible.
To mark the updated guidance, a series of blog posts have been commissioned from sector experts to illustrate how the new principles apply in areas of engineering from fire safety to wastewater management, and therefore the role engineering ethics and culture play in critical outcomes such as building safety and protecting public health.
The Engineering Council also produces Guidance on Security, Sustainability, Risk and Whistleblowing. The complete Statement of Ethical Principles and related guidance are available on the Engineering Council Website.
The Academy and the Engineering Council have also launched a new phase of work on engineering ethics to build on the principles, led by a new cross-disciplinary working group chaired by Professor John McDermid OBE FREng, Lloyd’s Register Foundation Chair of Safety at the University of York.
Paul Bailey, CEO of the Engineering Council said: “The Engineering Council is responsible for setting and raising standards of competence and conduct for the engineering profession. This updated Statement of Ethical Principles supports those working in the profession to meet our standards, ensuring that ethical practice keeps pace with technological change. The introduction of a new fifth principle acknowledges this evolution by highlighting technicians and engineers’ responsibility towards the future of technology and the long-term impacts of engineering on society and the environment. As such, the Statement remains an essential source of guidance that helps engineering to be seen and recognised by the public as a trusted and ethical profession.”
Dame Tamara Finkelstein DCB, Chief Executive of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said: “The Royal Academy of Engineering is committed to supporting engineering in the service of society and ensuring that technology improves lives. Ethics and a commitment to public benefit must be at the heart of what we do. Growing an engineering community fit for the future means providing engineers with the vision, principles and guidance to bring ethics into the heart of the profession and inspiring a new generation of engineers to work in ways that have meaningful, positive impact and that reinforces the trust society places in us.”
Keywords: Problem solving; Feedback loops; Decision-making; VUCA; Optimisation; Public health and safety; Risk; Sustainability; Ethics; Responsible design; Life cycle; Societal impact; Enterprise and innovation.
Who is this article for?: Thisarticle should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who are seeking an overall perspective on teaching approaches for integrating complex systems in engineering education.
Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness. A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.
This resource relates to the Systems Thinking andCritical Thinking INCOSE competencies.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems),and Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems).
Premise:
We live in a complex world. Complexity is a key challenge, captured in leadership terms by the VUCA framework: volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (Lanucha 2024). Engineers have the privilege of creating products and processes for humans to use in this landscape. Each of these likely has numerous parts which interact, as well as interacting with the environment, people, and needing to meet a host of safety, quality, sustainability, ethics, and financial obligations. Traditionally, engineers analyse problems by breaking them down into simple parts. This helps understanding and makes calculations feasible, but it’s easy to lose understanding of the whole system. Any change can easily create a problem elsewhere. From a technical viewpoint, engineers need to understand this interconnectedness in order for their creations to work. In a wider sense, ‘systems thinking’ is a skill central to engineering quality and management techniques, which seek to rationalise the complexity of entire organisations and their ever-changing market pressures.
The case for understanding systems:
Systems is perhaps one of the most misunderstood words in engineering. It is often found combined with mathematical modelling or control – topics often perceived as challenging – and is used in other fields like Computer Science, where tools and models are different. In all cases, the idea revolves around a group of interacting or interrelated elements which form a unified whole. Those elements can be physical or information, hardware or software, or any combination of mechanical, electrical, and other engineering domains. Thinking in terms of systems can therefore be thought of as a holistic approach.
The Engineering Council UK’s AHEP criteria include a systems approach: C/M6 – “Apply an integrated or systems approach to the solution of complex problems.” Several other AHEP criteria also reference complexity and complex problems, which they define as having “no obvious solution and may involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical issues and/or user needs that can be addressed through creativity and the resourceful application of engineering science. The Systems Thinking Alliance (2025) gives a broader definition of complexity as referring to “the condition of systems, objects, phenomena, or concepts that are challenging to understand, explain, or manage due to their intricate and interconnected nature. It involves multiple elements or factors that interact in unpredictable ways, often requiring significant information, time, or coordinated efforts to address.” For these, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all solution’ (Ellis 2025). This is the reality that engineers need to manage by understanding the potential effects on all parts of the system.
In order to analyse, engineers dissect complexity into manageable components, and educators teach these simple components before moving onto more complex systems. For example, students initially learn basic electrical components, simple beams, rigid bodies, etc. before bringing these together in case studies, and then moving onto topics like mechatronic systems. Historically, engineers specialised on graduation, perhaps becoming a stress engineer or fluid dynamicist in dedicated offices and functional teams. A design decision by one team could have unintended consequences for another, as well as additional uncertainty. The advent of cross-functional project and ‘matrix’ organisations mitigated against this, and companies have moved towards attribute teams which can consider the balance of behaviour. Even so, some uncertainty remains in the form of assumptions in calculations, changes in material properties with temperature or stress, or small variations in composition and manufacturing tolerances, which can all accumulate. Any parts which are bought ‘off-the-shelf’ or made by other companies under license must be carefully specified. Relationships can be nonlinear – or even chaotic – and contain feedback loops which can amplify changes (Kastens et al 2009). This all increases the risk of a product’s comfort, performance, and safety being impacted in ways that weren’t anticipated. Any problem that doesn’t come to light until the testing phase – late in the design process – represents costly redesigns and delays. In the unlikely event that a problem isn’t captured during testing either, the outcome could be disastrous.
Systems engineers will bring the product together and establish these complex behaviours through models and testing. Identifying potential problems early in the design phase can save significant money and facilitate better designs. This can be challenging, especially for systems using novel materials or operating in extreme environments, which aren’t accurately captured by standard calculations. Models may be linearised, neglect external forcing, or be derived for an assumed air density or ambient temperature which may not be valid. In recent decades, the engineering industry has moved towards model-based design and virtual prototyping, facilitated by advances in computer tools. These are increasingly sophisticated, but models still need to be built by engineers with an appreciation of complexity and the mechanisms by which a problem could arise. As humans develop new materials and technologies, and explore the limits of what is possible, engineering techniques and calculations need constant revision, and software tools are frequently updated to facilitate this.
That holistic view of problems has benefits outside of designing engineering artefacts. The manufacturing process is itself a complex system with potentially long supply chains. As is the organisation, which is comprised of numerous people operating in a landscape of financial pressures, employment law, politics and culture. Quality guru William Deming’s 14 Points for Management (Deming 2018) can be viewed as a systems approach to handling this complexity, by breaking down barriers between departments and instigating continuous improvement. Once a product is produced, it exists in a wider world and continues to interact with it. From a sustainability viewpoint, this can be the user and surrounding community, the environmental impact over a product’s lifecycle, and the financial markets which dictate whether a product is viable. It can also be the social, political, and legal landscapes: these can place direct constraints in the forms of laws governing safety and emissions (such as the UK’s legally binding target of net zero by 2050), or through embargos, tariffs, and subsidies. Each country has its own regulations, which can necessitate multiple variations of a product: a good example is cars, which need to be produced in both left- and right-hand drive, satisfy varying safety and emissions regulations, and cater for differing personal and cultural preferences for size, noise, usage and driving styles. Even when not legislated, a company might choose to support fair trade, lead the way in sustainable practices, or refuse to do business with suppliers or regimes they find objectionable – potentially making this a key part of their brand.
An engineer’s ability to appreciate and understand the wider social and business landscape is a reason why finance and management consultancy companies can often be seen recruiting engineers at student careers fairs. The Sainsbury Management Fellowship (SMF) scheme notably develops UK engineers as industry leaders, and fellows have made a major contribution to the UK’s economic prosperity (RAEng 2025).
Conclusions:
Complex systems are the “real world” that engineers attempt to understand and design for. They are complicated, interconnected, changing, and uncertain. The well-known part of engineering is analysis: breaking systems into understandable parts. There needs to be a parallel operation where those parts are assembled or integrated into a whole, and that whole interacts with everything around it. This is where unforeseen problems can occur. Systems models and a holistic systems thinking approach can mitigate this risk. A systems approach and ability to manage complexity is a key skill for engineers, and positions them well for other fields like management.
Kastens, K., Manduca, C., Cervato, C., & Frodeman, R., Goodwin, C., Liben, L., Mogk, D., Spangler, T., Stillings, N., Titus, S. (2009). How Geoscientists Think and Learn. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 90. 10.1029/2009EO310001.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Objectives:Engage in a mentorship relationship within EDI-focused networks, either as a mentor or mentee. This exchange fosters personal, professional growth and strengthens EDI communities through shared knowledge and experiences.
Introduction: Engaging in mentorship within EDI-focused networks, as either a mentor or mentee, fosters personal and professional growth while strengthening inclusive communities. Through peer support and mentoring groups, you can connect with others facing similar challenges, diversify your networks, and challenge social norms to promote social justice and inclusivity.
Topic: Building inclusive communities through EDI mentorship: fostering growth, networks, and social justice.
Keywords: Mentoring; Equity, Diversity and Inclusion; Justice; Social responsibility; Collaboration; Ethics; Professional development; Leadership or management.
Resources and support
A guide for employers, employees, and future employees on the reasons to implement reciprocal mentoring. Click here to access the PDF guide.
Reciprocal mentoring
In the video below, Professor Anne Nortcliffe highlights the concept and benefits of reciprocal mentoring, emphasizing mutual learning, inclusion, and shared growth between junior and senior colleagues.
Video summary:
🎯 Purpose: Reciprocal mentoring differs from traditional mentoring, where typically a senior guides a junior — here, both parties learn from one another.
🔄 Mutual learning: Both mentor and mentee bring valuable perspectives, creating opportunities for shared growth and understanding.
🧑🎓🧑💼 Generational exchange: Junior staff share insights from their generational and workplace experiences, enriching the senior staff’s awareness and approach.
🗺️ Career navigation: Seniors still provide guidance in navigating career paths and adapting to changing professional landscapes.
❓ Interview tip: During job interviews, ask if the employer has a reciprocal mentoring program — if not, use the provided toolkit to highlight its benefits.
📣 Authentic voices: Socially underrepresented individuals can bring their lived experiences into the conversation, promoting inclusion.
🌍 Inclusive environment: Reciprocal mentoring fosters diversity, equity, and inclusion within the workplace.
🧑🤝🧑 Collaborative impact: Mentors become advocates in senior spaces, amplifying the visibility and contributions of their mentees.
🚀 Opportunities: Mentors may champion their mentees for key projects and leadership development opportunities.
💡 Take initiative: If your workplace doesn’t offer reciprocal mentoring, suggest it to HR and help lead the implementation.
Peer support
Organise or join peer support/mentoring groups with fellow graduates or students who may experience similar challenges as you. You can use these groups to hear other people’s experiences relating to employment and how to thrive in the workplace.
Join organisations such as:
AFBE – Association for Black & Minority Ethnic Engineers offers mentoring for students.
Reflect on social justice themes and explore how they can enhance your work and contribute to a better world.
Evaluate employers’ ethical standards to ensure alignment with your values. Highlight your social justice values in your CV and interviews and inquire about the company’s ethics.
Expand your network to include diverse perspectives and experiences.
Engage with people from varied backgrounds to broaden your understanding and challenge societal norms.
Challenge social norms
What is your own view about the world and the way things are?
Are they okay as they are and if so, why?
Fact or fiction media narratives?
What assumptions have your made?
Who benefited from these assumptions?
What are your values?
Are these assumptions aligned with your values?
Use this way of thinking as you develop your own work and projects.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Please note: Discussions around discrimination, prejudice and bias are highly complex and part of a much wider national and international debate, including contested histories. As such, we have limited the scope of our resources to educating and supporting students.
The resources that the EPC and its partners are producing in this area will continue to expand and, if you feel there is an issue that is currently underrepresented in our content, we would be delighted to work with you to create more. Please get in touch.
We’re always pleased to see the #EngineeringEthicsToolkit featured in news articles, blogs, podcasts etc., and we’ll be keeping track of those mentions here.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Here you’ll find a list of our events related to the Engineering Ethics Toolkit.
You can also search here for meetings of the Ethics Advisory Group, and Ethics Ambassadors.
We’re pleased to announce that we have just published some much requested new materials focused on helping you to assess ethics learning within the classroom.
Assessing ethics: Guidance & rubric is designed in a way that encourages students to grapple with the numerous tensions involved in ethical decision making, with a focus on assessment of the decision-making process as opposed to the ‘answer’ given, the decision made, or the outcome of the scenario.
We would like to thank Dr. Natalie Wint (UCL) and Dr. William Bennett (Swansea University) for the time and effort they have put into creating these resources.
Activity: Assessment. This example demonstrates how the questions provided in Assessing ethics: Rubric can be used to assess the competencies stipulated at each level.
Authors: Dr. Natalie Wint (UCL); Dr. William Bennett (Swansea University).
This example demonstrates how the questions provided in the accompanying rubric can be used to assess the competencies stipulated at each level. Although we have focused on ‘Water Wars’ here, the suggested assessment questions have been designed in such a way that they can be used in conjunction with the case studies available within the toolkit, or with another case study that has been created (by yourself or elsewhere) to outline an ethical dilemma.
Year 1
Personal values: What is your initial position on the issue? Do you see anything wrong with how DSS are using water? Why, or why not?
Students should provide a stance, but more importantly their stance should be justified. In this instance this may involve reference to common moral values such as environmental sustainability, risk associated with power issues and questions of ownership.
Professional responsibilities: What ethical principles and codes of conduct are relevant to this situation?
Students should refer to relevant principles (e.g. from the Joint Statement of Ethical Principles). For example, in this case some of the relevant principles may include (but not be limited to) “protect, and where possible improve, the quality of built and natural environment”, “maximise the public good and minimise both actual and potential adverse effects for their own and succeeding generations” and “take due account of the limited availability of natural resources”.
Ethical principles and codes of conduct can be used to guide our actions during an ethical dilemma. How does the guidance provided in this case align/differ with your personal views? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Students’ answers will depend upon those given to the previous questions but should include some discussion of similarities and differences between their own initial thoughts and principles/codes of conducts, and allude to the tensions involved in ethical dilemmas and the impact on decision making.
What are the moral values involved in this case and why does it constitute an ethical dilemma? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Students should be able to identify relevant moral values and explain that an ethical dilemma constitutes a problem in which two or more moral values or norms cannot be fully realised at the same time.
There are two (or a limited number of) options for action and whatever they choose they will commit a moral wrong. The crucial feature of a moral dilemma is not the number of actions that are available but the fact that all possible actions are morally unsatisfactory.
What role should an engineer play in influencing the outcome? What are the implications of not being involved? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Engineers are responsible for the design of technological advancements which necessitate data storage. Although this brings many benefits, engineers need to consider the adverse impact of technological advancement such as increased water use. Students may therefore want to consider the wider implications of data storage on the environment and how these can be mitigated.
Year 2
Formulate a moral problem statement which clearly states the problem, its moral nature and who needs to act. (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
An example could be: “Should the civil engineer working for DSS remain loyal to the company and defend them against accusations of causing environmental hazards, or defend their water rights and say that they will not change their behaviour”. It should be clear what the problem is, the moral values at play and who needs to act.
Stakeholder mapping: Who are all the stakeholders in the scenario? What are their positions, perspective and moral values?
Below is a non-exhaustive list of some of the relevant stakeholders and values that may come up.
Stakeholder
Perspectives/interests
Moralvalues
DataStorageSolutions (DSS)
Increasing production in a profitable way; meeting legal requirements; good reputationtomaintain/grow customer base.
Representviewsofthose concerned about biodiversity. May be interested in opening ofgreenbattery plant.
Human welfare; environmental sustainability;justice.
LocalCouncil
Represent views of all stakeholders and would needtoconsidereconomic benefits of DSS (tax and employment), the need of theuniversityandhospital, as well as the needs of local farmers and environmentalists. May beinterestedinopeningof green battery plant.
This may depend on their beliefs as an individual, their employment status and their use of services such as the hospital and university. Typically interested in low taxes/responsible spending of public money. May be interested in opening of green batteryplant.
Reliable storage. They mayalsobeinterestedin being part of an ethical supply chain.
Trust; privacy; accountability;autonomy.
Non-humanstakeholders
Environmental sustainability.
What are some of the possible courses of action in the situation. What responsibilities do you have to the various stakeholders involved? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each? (Reworded from case study.)
Students should provide a stance but may recognise the tensions involved. For example, at a micro level, tensions between loyalty to the profession and loyalty to the company/personal financial stability. Responsibilities to fellow employees may include the degree to which you risk their jobs by being honest. They may also feel that they should protect environmental and natural resources.
At a macro level, they may consider the need for engineers to inform decisions regarding issues that engineering and technology raise for society (e.g. increased water being needed for data storage) and listen to the aspirations and concerns of others, and challenging statements or policies that cause them professional concern.
What are the relevant facts in this scenario and what other information would you like to help inform your ethical decision making? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Students should identify which facts within the case study are relevant in terms of making an ethical decision. In this case, some of the relevant facts may include:
Water use permissible by law (“the data centre always uses the maximum amount legally allotted to it.”)
This centre manages data which is vital for the local community, including the safe running of schools and hospitals, and that its operation requires sufficient water for cooling.
In more arid months, the nearby river almost runs dry, resulting in large volumes of fish dying.
Water levels in farmers’ wells have dropped, making irrigation much more expensive and challenging.
A new green battery plant is planned to open nearby that will create more data demand and has the potential to further increase DSS’ water use.
Obtaining water from other sources will be costly to DSS and may not be practically possible, let alone commercially viable.
Studentsshouldbeawarethatincompleteinformationhindersdecisionmakingduring ethical dilemmas, and that in some cases, further information will be needed to help inform decisions. In this case, some of the questions may pertain to:
Exactly how much water is being used and the legal rights.
Relationship between farmer and DSS/contractual obligations.
How costly irrigation is to the farmers (economic impact), as well as the knock-on impact to their business and supply chain.
How many people DSS employ and how important they are for local economy.
Detail regarding biodiversity loss and its wider impact.
How likely it is that the green battery plant will open and whether DSS is the only eligible supplier.
How much the green battery plant contract is worth to DSS.
How much water the green battery plant will use in the case that DSS get the contract.
Whether DSS is the only option for hospital and university.
What will happen if the services DSS provide to the hospital and university stop or becomes unreliable.
Year 2/Year 3
(At Year 2, students could provide options; at Year 3 they would evaluate and form a judgement.)
Make use of ethical frameworks and/or professional codes to evaluate the options for DSS both short term and long term. How do the uncertainty and assumptions involved in this case impact decision making?
Students should list plausible options. They can then analyse them with respect to different ethical frameworks (whilst we don’t necessary make use of normative ethical theories, analysis according to consequences, intention or action may be a useful approach to this). Below we have included a non-exhaustive list of options with ideas in terms of analysis.
Option
Consequences
Intention
Action
Keepusing water
May lead to expansion and profit of DSS and thus tax revenue/employment and supply.
Reputational damage of DSS may increase. Individual employee piece of mind may be at risk.
Farmers still don’t have water and biodiversity still suffers which may have further impact long term.
Intentionbehindaction notconsistentwith that expected by an engineer, other than with respect to legality
Actionfollowslegalnormsbut not social norms such as good will and concern for others.
Keep using the water but limit furtherwork
May limit expansion and profit of DSS and thus tax revenue/employment and supply.
Farmers still don’t have water and biodiversity still suffers and may have further impact long term. This could still result in reputation damage.
Intentionbehindaction partially consistent with that expected by an engineer.
Actionfollowslegalnormsbut only partially follow social norms such as good will and concern for others.
Makeuseof other sources of water
Data storage continues.
Potential for reputation to increase.
Potential increase in cost of water resulting in less profit potentially less tax revenue/employment.
Farmers have water and biodiversity may improve.
Alternativewatersourcesmaybeassociated with the same issues or worse.
Intention behind action seems consistent with that expected by an engineer. However, this is dependent upon
whether they chose to source sustainablewaterwithlessimpact on biodiversity etc.
Thismaybedependenton the degree to which DSS proactively source sustainable water.
Reduce worklevels or shut down
Impact on profit and thus tax revenue/employment and supply chain. Farmers have water and biodiversity may improve.
May cause operational issues for those whose data is stored.
Seems consistent with those expected of engineer. Raises questions more generally about viability and feasibility of datastorage.
Action doesn’t follow social norms of responsibility to employeesandshareholders.
Investigate othercooling methods which don’t require as much water/don’t take on extra work untilanother method identified.
May benefit whole sector.
May cause interim loss of service.
This follows expectations of the engineeringprofession in terms of evidence-baseddecisionmaking and consideration for impact of engineering in society.
It follows social norms in termsofresponsibledecision making.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Dr. Natalie Wint (UCL); Dr. William Bennett (Swansea University).
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design.
As engineering educators, it is uncommon that we were taught or assessed on ethical thinking within our own degree programmes. Although we may be able to think of plenty of ethical scenarios from our own experience, we may not necessarily be able to identify the best way to assess the ability of a student to engage in ethical thinking in a systematic and robust manner, something which is critical for both the evaluation of learning and teaching (as explained further here).
Furthermore, the complex, ill-structured nature of ethical dilemmas, which often involve a variety of diverse stakeholders, perspectives and cultural norms, necessitates an ability to navigate tensions and compromise. This results in situations in which multiple possible courses of action can be identified, meaning that there is not one single ‘good’ or ‘correct’ answer to ethical questions posed.
It is also necessary to evidence that students are able to meet the criteria outlined by accreditation bodies. Within the UK context, it is the Engineering Council (EC) that is responsible for providing the principal framework which guides engineering course content and sets accreditation threshold standards of competence through AHEP, the Accreditation of Higher Education Programs, as part of The UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UKSPEC).
The knowledge, skills and attributes expected of engineering graduates constantly shifts, and since the advent of AHEP in 2004 there has been increased focus on strengthening design, and consideration for economic, ethical, environmental, legal, and social factors.
In-keeping with a need to assess engineering ethics in a robust manner, this article provides step-by-step considerations for designing assessment and is primarily intended to be used in conjunction with an existing ethics case study, such as those available through the EPC’s Engineering Ethics Toolkit (we later make use of the existing ‘Water Wars’ case study to exemplify the points made).
The guidance and accompanying rubric have been designed in a way that encourages students to grapple with the numerous tensions involved in ethical decision making, and the focus is thus on assessment of the decision-making process as opposed to the ‘answer’ given, the decision made or the outcome of the scenario.
Assessment purpose:
The first consideration is the year group you are assessing, and the competencies they have already acquired (for example in the case of Level 5 and Level 6 students). You may want to consider the (partial) learning outcome (LO) as defined by AHEP4 LO8 (Table 1). Whilst this shouldn’t act to limit what you choose to assess, it is a good place to start in terms of the level of ability your students should be demonstrating.
Note that the Engineering Council (EC) claim “This fourth edition of AHEP has reduced the total number of learning outcomes in order to focus attention on core areas, eliminate duplication and demonstrate progression between academic levels of study”. They are thus interested in the differences between level. You are recommended to make this explicit in module specification and associated assessment description. Key differentiations are shown in Table 1. For example, at Level 5 you may be more interested in students’ abilities to identify an ethical situation, whereas at Level 6 you may want them to be able to reason through options or make a judgement.
Table 1: AHEP4 Learning Outcomes
Year 1 (Level 4)
Year 2 (Level 5)
Year 3 (Level 6)
M Level (Level 7)
LO8
Apply ethical principles and recognise the need for engineers to exercise their responsibilities in an ethical manner and in line with professional codes of conduct.
Identify ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct.
Identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct.
Identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct (MEng).
Interpretation
Awareness of issues, obligations, and responsibilities; sensitising students to ethical issues.
Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and to examine opposing arguments.
Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and examine and evaluate/critique opposing arguments.
Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and examine and evaluate/critique opposing arguments.
The final row in Table 1 provides our interpretation of the LO, making use of language similar to that within the EPC’s Ethics Learning Landscape. We believe this is more accessible and more easily operationalised.
The following steps outline the process involved in designing your assessment. Throughout we make reference to an existing EPC case study (Water Wars) to exemplify the points made.
1.) The first consideration is how much time you have and how much of the case study you want to use. Many of the case studies have multiple stages and could be spread over several sessions depending on time constraints.
2.) Linked to this is deciding whether you want to assess any other LOs within the assessment. For example, many of the case studies have technical elements. Furthermore, when using reports, presentations, or debates as methods of assessment you may also want to assess communication skills. Whatever you decide you should be careful to design the assessment in such a way that assesses LO8 in a robust manner, whereby the student could not pass the element without demonstrating they have met the individual LO to the required level (this is a key requirement to meet AHEP4). For example, in an assessment piece where ethics is worth 50% of the grade, a student could still pass the element as a whole (with 40%) by achieving high scores in the other grading criteria without the need to demonstrate their ability to meet LO8.
3.) Once you are aware how much of a case study you have time for and have decided which LOs (other than LO8) you are assessing, you should start to determine which questions are aligned with the level of study you are considering and/or the ability of the students (for example you may query whether students at Level 5 have already developed the skills and competencies suggested for Level 4). At each level you can make use of the accompanying rubric to help you consider how the relevant attributes might be demonstrated by students. As an example, please refer to the accompanying document where we provide our thoughts about how we would assess Water Wars at Levels 4-6.
4.) Once you have selected questions you could look to add any complementary activities or tasks (that do not necessarily have to be assessed) to help the students broaden their understanding of the problem and ability to think through their response. For example, in the Water Wars case study, there are multiple activities (for example Part 1, Q3 and Part 2, Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7) aimed at helping students understand different perspectives which may help them to answer further ethical questions. There are also technical questions (for example Part 1, Q5) which help students understand the integrated nature of technical and social aspects and contextualise scenarios.
5.) Once you have selected your questions you will need to make a marking rubric which includes details of the weightings given for each component of the assessment. (This is where you will need to be careful in selecting whether other LOs are assessed e.g., communication, and whether a student can pass the assessment/module without hitting LO8). You can then make use of the guidance provided in terms of expectations at a threshold and advanced level, to write criteria for what is expected at each grade demarcation.
Although we have focused on ‘Water Wars’ here, the suggested assessment questions within the accompanying rubric have been designed in such a way that they can be used in conjunction with the case studies available within the toolkit, or with another case study that has been created (by yourself or elsewhere) to outline an ethical dilemma.
Other considerations:
As acknowledged elsewhere within the toolkit (see here), there are “practical limits on assessment” (Davis and Feinerman, 2012) of ethics, including demands on time, pressure from other instructors or administrators, and difficulty in connecting assessment of ethics with assessment of technical content. These are some other considerations you may wish to make when planning assessment.
• Number of students and/or marking burden: With large student numbers you may be more inclined to choose a group assessment method (which may also be beneficial in allowing students to share perspectives and engage in debate), or a format which is relatively quick to mark/allows automated marking (e.g. a quiz). In the case of group work it is important to find a way in which to ensure that all students within each group meet the LO in a robust manner. Whilst assessment formats such as quizzes may be useful for assessing basic knowledge, they are limited in their ability to ensure that students have developed the higher-level competencies needed to meet the LO at output level.
• Academic integrity: As with any LO there is a need to ensure academic integrity. This may be particularly difficult for large cohorts and group work. You may wish to have a range of case studies or ensure assessment takes place in a controlled environment (e.g. an essay/report under exam conditions). This is particularly important at output level where you may wish to provide individual assessment under exam conditions (although competencies may be developed in groups in class).
• Logistics/resourcing: Many of the competencies associated with ethics are heavily linked to communication and argumentation, and answers tend to be highly individual in nature. Role play, debates, and presentations may therefore be considered the most suitable method of assessment. However, their use is often limited by staffing, room, and time constraints. Many of these methods could, instead, be used within class time to help students develop competencies prior to formal assessment. You may also choose to assess ethics in another assessment which is more heavily resourced (for example design projects or third year projects).
• Staged assessment: The ethical reasoning process benefits from different perspectives. It may therefore be desirable to stage assessment in such a way that individuals form their own answer (e.g. a moral problem statement), before sharing within a group. In this way a group problem statement, which benefits from multiple perspectives and considerations, can be formed. Similarly, individuals may take the role of an individual stakeholder in an ethical dilemma before coming together as a group.
• Use of exams: Whilst we see an increasing movement away from exams, we feel that a (closed book) exam is a suitable method of assessment of ethics based LOs in the situation that:
o There is a need to ensure academic integrity, and that each student meets the LO at output level.
o The exam is assessing competencies (e.g. ethical argumentation) as opposed to knowledge.
o All the relevant information needed is provided and there is limited content for students to learn in advance (aside from argumentation, justification, decision making skills etc developed in class).
Their use may therefore be limited to Level 6.
Rubric
This document provides the partial AHEPLO8 at each level. The competences involved in meeting this LO have then been identified, along with what students would need to demonstrate to evidence meeting a threshold level, or advanced level. Example questions are given to show how students may demonstrate their competence at each level. For each question there is an explanation of how the question supports achievement of LO at that level. The rubrics should be used alongside the accompanying guidance document which offers practical suggestions and advice.
Year 1: This year focuses on developing awareness of issues, obligations, and responsibilities, and sensitising students to ethical issues.
Year 2: This year focuses on developing the ability to identify ethical issues and to examine opposing arguments, all of which is needed to examine, analyse, and evaluate ethical dilemmas in Year 3.
Year 3: This year focuses on ensuring that students can satisfy LO8 at an output level in a robust manner.
References:
Davis, M. and A. Feinerman. (2012). ‘Assessing graduate student progress in engineering ethics’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), pp. 351-367.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
James, where did your passion for this issue originate and how can the resources available for information literacy be put to use both by faculty and students?
We live in a time marked by an unprecedented deluge of information, where distinguishing reliable and valuable content has become increasingly difficult. My concern was to help engineering educators meet the critical challenge of fostering ethical behaviour in their students in this complex world. Students are in real need of an ethical compass to navigate this information overload, and the digital landscape in particular. They need to acquire what we call ‘information and digital literacy’, specifically, learning how to research, select and critically assess reliable data. This is both a skill and a practice.
For students, how does this skill relate to the engineering workplace?
From observing professional engineers, it’s clear they require comprehensive insights and data to resolve problems, complete projects, and foster innovation. This necessitates extensive research, encompassing case studies, standards, best practices, and examples to validate or refute their strategies. Engineering is a profession deeply rooted in the analysis of failures in order to prevent avoidable mistakes. As a result, critical and unbiased thinking is essential and all the more so in the current state of the information landscape. This is something Knovel specifically strives to improve for the communities we serve.
Knovel – a reference platform I’ve significantly contributed to – was initially built for practising engineers. Our early realisation was that the biggest obstacle for engineers in accessing the best available information wasn’t a lack of resources, but barriers such as insufficient digitalisation, technological hurdles, and ambiguous usage rights. Nowadays, the challenge has evolved: there’s an overload of online information, emerging yet unreliable sources like certain chatbots, and a persistently fragmented information landscape.
How is Knovel used in engineering education? Can you share some insights on how to make the most of it?
Knovel is distinguished by its extensive network of over 165 content partners worldwide, offering a breadth of trusted perspectives to meet the needs of a range of engineering information challenges. It’s an invaluable tool for students, especially those in project-based learning programs during their Undergraduate and Master’s studies. These students are on the cusp of facing real-world engineering challenges, and Knovel exposes them to the information practices of professional engineers.
The platform is adept at introducing students to the research methodologies and information sources that a practising engineer would utilise. It helps them understand how professionals in their field gather insights, evaluate information, and engage in the creative process of problem-solving. While Knovel includes accessible introductory content, it progressively delves into more advanced topics, helping students grasp the complexities of decision-making in engineering. This approach makes Knovel an ideal companion for students transitioning from academic study to professional engineering practice.
How is the tool used by educators?
For educators, the tool offers support starting in the foundational years of teaching, covering all aspects of project-based learning and beyond. It is also an efficient way for faculty to remain up-to-date with the latest information and data on key issues. Ultimately, it is educators who have the challenge of guiding students towards reputable, suitable, traceable information. In doing so, educators are helping students to understand that where they gather information, and how they use it, is in itself an ethical issue.
Knovel for Higher Education is an Elsevier product. As a publisher-neutral platform, Knovel helps engineering students explore foundational literature with interactive tools and data.
46% of EPC members already have access to Knovel. To brainstorm how you can make the best use of Knovel in your classroom, please contact: Susan Watson, susan.watson@elsevier.com.
Faculty and students can check their access to Knovel using their university email address at the following link: Account Verification – Knovel
Get Knovel to accelerate R&D, validate designs and prepare technical professionals. Innovate in record time with multidisciplinary knowledge you can trust: Knovel: Engineering innovation in record time
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
What are the top ethical issues in engineering today, and how can you incorporate these in your teaching?
In our Engineering Ethics workshop at the 2023 SEFI Conference at TU Dublin, we asked participants what they felt were the top ethical issues in engineering today. This word cloud captured their responses, and the results reveal concerns ranging from AI and sustainability to business and policy and beyond.
When incorporating ethics into a lesson or module, educators might want to find teaching resources that address a topic that’s recently been in the news or something of particular relevance to a group of students or to a project brief. But how can this be done efficiently when there are now so many teaching materials available in our Toolkits?
Fortunately, sifting through available resources in the Ethics Toolkit is now easier than ever, with the release of the new Toolkit search function. The Toolkit search allows users to:
Choose from a list of suggested keyword tags;
Search by multiple keyword tags or their own search terms;
Refine the search results by one of more of the following filters: engineering discipline; educational level; type of content.
It even pulls resources from across different toolkits, if so desired.
Not only will this help you discover and find materials that are right for your educational context, but the search function could even become a teaching tool in itself. For instance, you could poll students with the same question we used in the SEFI Workshop, asking them what they think the top ethical issues are in engineering today, and then design (or co-design) a lesson or activity based on their responses and supported by resources in the Toolkit. If you don’t find resources for a particular issue, that could be a great learning opportunity to0 – why might these topics not be addressed? Of course, you can always create a resource that fills a gap and submit it to be a part of the Toolkit: we would love to see a student-developed case study or activity.
Let us know how you have used the Toolkit search function, and if there are ways we could improve it. Happy searching!
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
The Engineering Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering have chosen Chartered Week (23–27 February) to publish an update of their joint Statement on Ethical Principles for the engineering profession, first published over 20 years ago.
Ethical commitments are at the heart of the role of a registered engineer or technician – and everyone who works in engineering. The refreshed Statement reflects the changing technology environment and the new challenges faced by engineering professionals today.
Toolkit: 
The 
Here you’ll find a list of our events related to the Engineering Ethics Toolkit.
We’re pleased to announce that we have just published some much requested new materials focused on helping you to assess ethics learning within the classroom.
