ethical issues and the air quality practitioner

ETHICAL ISSUES AND THE AIR QUALITY PRACTITIONER

Introduction

Ethics concerns the surrounding climate of ideas about how to live, what we find acceptable or unacceptable, admirable or contemptible....it gives us our standards – our standards of behaviour. [Blackburn S., Ethics – A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2001]

• As air quality professionals we have standards that we want to maintain; we should also expect other people – clients, employers and other parties – to respect our professional and ethical standards.

• Aim of today’s workshop - designed to increase your understanding of these ethical standards and, we hope, give you greater confidence in your position if put under pressure.

Content

1. Ethics in Science

2. Environmental Ethics

3. How the work of the Air Quality Practitioner sits at the interface of these and Business Ethics

4. Common dilemmas faced by Air Quality Practitioners in the commercial world

1. Ethics in Science

• High-level philosophical questions - concepts around whether scientific knowledge is value-free or objectionable in itself, or whether it is the use to which that knowledge is put that might be considered an unethical end.

• Less abstract - front-line science, experimental science/research and applied science /medicine/etc. has to answer on the good versus harm that its application may cause, or on how we use people or animals in any experiments.

• Air Quality Practitioners - in their everyday work concerns related mainly to the integrity of the scientific methods and data, and striving to base our judgements/ inferences/ conclusions on good science and robust evidence.

• Well publicised examples of poor scientific ethics:

— in other fields of science:

o e.g. published research later found to have drawn on falsified data;

o e.g. Wakefield`s MMR vaccine conclusions later shown to have been drawn from poor studies and data).

— In our own field, reported example of alleged fraudulent submission of air quality figures.

2. Environmental Ethics

• Concerns human beings` ethical relationship with the natural environment.

• Attempts to outline our moral obligations in the face of concerns about pollution, depletion of natural resources, dwindling plant and animal biodiversity, loss of wilderness, degradation of ecosystems and climate change.

• A wide and growing field encompassing different schools of thought on how to answer the fundamental questions of, what duties do people have with respect to the environment and why?

• For example, are those environmental obligations for the sake of human beings living in the world today, for humans living in the future, or for the sake of entities within the environment itself irrespective of any human benefits?

For a concise summary of these different philosophical approaches in environmental ethics, see for example London School of Economics Research Online publication [Cochrane, Alasdair (2006) Environmental ethics. Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002) available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21190/]

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21190/

2. Environmental Ethics (continued)

Wide differences between approaches in how high a premium they place on humans - and indeed specific individuals - compared to other animals and plants, or to wider holistic entities that encompass natural processes. For example:

• “Holistic” environmental ethics school of thought

— Aldo Leopold`s (1887-1948)`land ethic` to stop treating the land as a mere object or resource, but consider it as a flow circuit of energy cycles with soils, plants and animals in a complex relationship.

— `Moral standing` granted to land itself, not just individuals: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

• Other schools of thought question this land ethic justification

— Claim that holistic ethics condone sacrificing individuals for the sake of the whole.

— In certain situation that might be accepted (e.g. shooting rabbits to preserve plant species) but there is an understandable reluctance to sacrifice human interests in similar situations.

• Proponents of holistic ethics have responded

— Acknowledging the moral standing of holistic entities does not mean that one must deny the interests and rights of human beings and individual people. But questions remain on what to do when the interests of wholes clash with the interests of individuals.

Ithaca journal, Feb 2016, Marsi – The words of Aldo Leopold never grow old

3. Ethics and the Air Quality Practitioner

Charted Environmentalist (CEnv) applicants are required to cite examples of ethical dilemmas they have faced. Most tend to fall into the following broad categories:

i. Concerns about the wider, holistic effects of a project they have worked on;

ii. Wanting to prevent harm from air pollution;

iii. Broader commercial pressures on them to skew their advice in one direction or another; and

iv. Other, hidden-meaning pressures from clients and employers.

It is useful to examine where these common dilemmas sit in relation to the interfaces of Science Ethics, Environmental Ethics and Business Ethics.

3. Ethics and the Air Quality Practitioner (continued)(i) ‘Greater Good’ holistic-type dilemmasReal examples from CEnv applications:• “I am often engaged on developments planned in the most sensitive and protected

areas in the world. For example, I am currently involved in an ESIA that will displace several villages in <redacted> to construct an oil pipeline. The development would bring substantial jobs and economic development to a deprived area, but considerable assessment and mitigation is required to avoid significant environmental and social impacts and I had doubts it will be implemented.”

• “While I could often decide to not work on these projects and only focus on projects which have strong environmental credentials it will not stop the projects from going ahead. Instead it is often more fruitful to be ‘inside’ of the project and help make small improvements to systems and help drive the environmental issues through the projects.”

These dilemmas fall clearly in the Environmental Ethics area.

3. Ethics and the Air Quality Practitioner (continued)(i) ‘Greater Good’ holistic-type dilemmas

• Possible to be harmed (or cause harm) by a particular action, even though we (or external society or nature) benefits overall.

• Tension between specific effects c.f. the wider effect is often mirrored in the EIA process of major projects

e.g. wider benefit of a major road scheme weighed against the beneficial/adverse effects on people, nature and cultural heritage.

• IES Code of Professional Conduct Rule 2 - all members to “strive to ensure the advancement of environmental quality and sustainable development and the mitigation of environmental harm”

How might we reconcile this?

• For major projects, the air quality assessment will usually be a single cog in the project machine

• Question - has the ethical judgement call balancing AQ effects v greater good of development, passed outside the Air Quality Practitioner remit and onto the author of the ES/Planning Statement?

3. Ethics and the Air Quality Practitioner (continued)

(ii) ‘Dilemmas in avoiding harm from air pollution• For example, a member may feel uncomfortable working for

a developer whose project will increase the traffic flow by a small amount near to a nursery school, because there is no minimum threshold for health effects from PM and young lungs are particularly susceptible.

• Understandable concern - clear link with the IES CoPC Rule 3 requiring members “shall have full regard at all times for the public interest”.

• This dilemma probably falls in the interface/overlap of Environmental Ethics and Ethics in Science.

• How might we reconcile this?

3. Ethics and the Air Quality Practitioner (continued)(ii) ‘Dilemmas in avoiding harm from air pollution• To what extent are Air Quality Practitioners predicting the impacts only, and where

these are large we would tend to pass-on the task of gauging the resultant effects (and their significance) to other specialist?

— Example: where we have predicted impacts at sensitive habitats and the project Ecologist considers the resulting effect and its significance.

— Another example: when the human health effects have been evaluated by an HIA specialists, who forms the judgement on significance.

• In such instances, it may be legitimate to ask: — have we discharged in full our professional duty by simply reporting the air quality impacts

robustly, based on good science/evidence, without bias?

— Has the ethical judgement call passed outside the remit of the Air Quality Practitioner to sit with the HIA specialist and Ecologist?

• What about air quality assessments that do not have another specialist evaluating the effect from our predicted impacts?

— we ourselves tend not to make judgements on air quality effects that stray too far from published practice-wide guidance that categorise them – does this mean the ethical judgement call sits with the body that has formulated the guidelines?

(iii) Pressures to understate or overstate air quality impactsA real example from C.Env application:“I acted as an Expert Witness in… Court for.… controversial coal mining projects… Given the financial consequences of a court ruling against the approval of a project, there was significant pressure for me to present the project in a positive light. During the first of these cases it was even indicated that the billionaire owner of the project proponent wished to speak to me in person regarding my testimony on the day of the court hearing. In the event, I presented the facts of the case to the best of my ability and provided neutral testimony that was accepted by the Court.”

The route followed by the member holds up well against:• IAQM CoPC -“Members will 1. Maintain professional integrity at all times and be guided by the principle of

applying the most appropriate science/practice for any given task. This requires members to display objectivity and refrain from being selective or partial when presenting data or facts for a written report or in oral form...”

• IES CoPC Rule 1, which says “Members shall exercise professional skills and judgement to the best of their ability and discharge professional responsibilities safely and with integrity” and its interpretation note which states, “Members should give professional opinions that are objective, reliable and backed with scientific rigour….” and “Potential breaches of Rule 1 could include: Failing to carry out their professional duties with complete objectivity and impartiality….”


(iii) Pressures to understate or overstate air quality impacts

Other examples we have been made aware of include:

• Pressure to be overly pessimistic by, for example, applying the Precautionary Principle out of context.

• Fudging baselines –— pressure to be overly conservative, or unduly optimistic.

— Where there are several alternative sources of baseline data and/or a number of monitoring locations, what is the professional/ethical choice?

These dilemmas tend to fall in the interface/overlap of Ethics in Science and Business Ethics.

Environmental Ethics

Business Ethics

Science Ethics


(iii) Pressures to understate or overstate air quality impactsHow might we deal with these pressures? Questions we could ask ourselves include:• Have you applied an approach or principle that is the most appropriate

science/practice for the task?• Have you used evaluation tools that are appropriate for the task?• Are the data and evidence you are using, suitable and sufficient for use with those

evaluation tools and principles?• Are the inferences and conclusions you draw from the evaluation, objective and

justified from the full results and dataset?

If the answer is no, the IAQM and IES CoPCs can be cited to resist inappropriate pressure


(iii) Pressures to understate or overstate air quality impactsThere will be many cases where professional judgement will be required.Expert witnesses are the only witnesses who can offer opinions as evidence. Brings with it specific duties and responsibilities, contained in the Civil Procedure Rules and annexed protocol. Require that an expert witness and/or evidence:• The duty…. is to help the court on the matters within their expertise… overrides any

obligation to the person from whom experts have received instructions or.. are paid.• ….should be and should be seen to be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced

as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation. (Useful test… is that the expert would express the same opinion if given the same instructions by an opposing party.)

• Should provide… objective unbiased opinion on matters within their expertise.• Should state the facts or assumptions on which their opinion is based and should not omit

to consider material facts which detract from their concluded opinion.• If an expert`s opinion is not properly researched because he considers that insufficient data

are available, then this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one.


(iii) Pressures to understate or overstate air quality impacts• Members will want to bear in mind these duties when responding to pressures to depart

from objective, independent, assessments. Furthermore, members should see the IES and IAQM CoPCs as powerful tools to deflect pressures to depart from ethical principles.

• Indeed the role of such professional codes and rules is recognised in Planning Inspectorate guidance on the duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses:

“Expert evidence should include an endorsement such as that set out below or similar (such as that required by a particular professional body). This will enable the Inspector and others involved in an appeal to know that the material in a proof of evidence, written statement or report is provided as `expert evidence`. An appropriate form of endorsement is as follows:

`The evidence which I have prepared and provided for this appeal reference APP/xxx (in this proof of evidence, written statement or report) is true and has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and [complete] professional opinions.`


(iv) Other, hidden-meaning pressures from clients and employers• “Be commercial...”, “Be pragmatic…”, “Be flexible...”, “See the wider picture...” Etc • What is the hidden meaning here? What is the real intent?• These pressures may be Business Ethics concerns, or they may fall into the

interfaces with Ethics in Science and Environmental Ethics.Real example from C.Env application:

“I had been working on site for several days collecting data, but when I returned to the office in [another country], I realised that my data had all been corrupted and lost. Despite the additional time/cost (and embarrassment to both my employer and me) of having to repeat the survey, I realised that being honest about this situation (as opposed to ‘fabricating’ data) was the correct approach to be taken.”

Perhaps the overarching question for us then becomes:Do we as Air Quality Practitioners have any moral obligations that are equal to, or even sit above, our employer`s / our clients` commercial interests and our duties as loyal employees or advisers to clients?


WHAT IS BUSINESS ETHICS AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

What is business ethics?

• Are there any stories which include an ethical component or an ethical dilemma?

• What is the impact of that dilemma on those involved?

What makes an organisation ethical?

What does business ethics mean to you?

“The application of ethical values to business behaviour ”

© IBE

Society

Individual

Company/ organisation

Professional

© IBE

Values

Ethics or compliance?

© IBE

Source: IBE & TEI (2017), Ethics and Compliance Handbook

Where does the law fit in?

Is it legal?

Yes

No

Is it ethical? (the right thing to do)YesNo

Legal, ethical

Illegal, unethical

Legal, unethical

Illegal, ethical

© IBE

Reputation and trust

Reputation

Trust

© IBE

“Take care of your reputation. It’s your most valuable asset ”H. Jackson Brown

Jr.

Trust in British Business• Trust in business the highest we’ve ever recorded

© IBE

Source: IBE (2018), Attitudes of the British Public survey

In summary

© IBE

Financial & Operational performance

Trust & Reputation

Behaviour & Culture

“Doing business ethically, makes for better business ”

ARE WE AS ETHICAL AS WE THINK WE ARE?

How ethical are you?

© IBE

Ethical Risks

• Ethical Blindness: a person is unable to see the ethical dimension of the decision they are making.

• Moral disengagement: a person is aware of the ethical aspects of a decision and actively choses to disengage from these and behave unethically.

They would want it to be done this way

What they don’t know won’t hurt them

© IBE

Behavioural Economics

• It fuses psychology and economics to gain a better understanding of human behaviour and decision-making.

• This is useful to predict:– Consumer’s behaviour– Investor’s choices– Ethical/unethical decision-making

• BEHAVIOURAL ETHICS: It seeks to understand how people behave when confronted with an ethical dilemma. It identifies key signs or decision-making patterns that lead to

ethical risks.

© IBE

Thinking Fast and Slow…

© IBE Source: Daniel Kahneman (2011), Thinking Fast and Slow

SYSTEM 1 - FAST SYSTEM 2 - SLOW

Snap decisions and jump to conclusions

Always on and producing fast decisions and judgements for everyday decisions

Automatic, unconscious

We have a Two System way of thinking.

Most of us identify with System 2 thinking, but we spend more time in our daily lives engaged in System 1.

Analysis, problem solving and deeper evaluations

To tackle something unexpected or to make a conscious effort to gain a critical view.

Complex decisions, conscious

What can you do?

What measures can your organisation put in place to minimise the ethical risks coming from a

Two System way of thinking?

© IBE

Group discussion

Communications and training

Organisations can:

• Enable ethics and values to become part of employees’ System 1

• Train employees to recognise ethical dilemmas that require more critical thinking

Code of ethics Ethics training

69% 59% 56% 39%

© IBE

Source: IBE (2018), Ethics at Work: 2018 Survey of Employees – United Kingdom

Example of shortcut: CONFIRMATION BIAS

© IBE

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses.

Wilful blindness occurs when individuals fail to see, acknowledge or act on problems in plain sight.

It’s often unconscious: we fail to see evidence against our beliefs and mental models.

What can you do?

What can your organisation learn from research on conformity bias and wilful blindness in order to

improve its ethics programme?

© IBE

Group discussion

Tone from the top: act as role models

© IBE

Source: IBE (2018), Ethics at Work: 2018 Survey of Employees – United Kingdom

What can you do?

What is the impact of the Nudge Theory on your organisation’s ethics programme?

© IBE

Group discussion

Conclusions

• Doing the right thing needs to become our instinctive reaction (our ‘gut feel’): communications and training

• People are likely to put aside ethics if they think this is what their boss/their role requires: tone from the top is important

• People determine the appropriate behaviour by looking around: ethics need to part of the reward, recognition and promotion systems

• Sometimes, ‘nudging’ ethics can be more effective than enforcing compliance

© IBE

BUSINESS ETHICS IN PRACTICE: SPEAKING UP

• Early warning systems for potential ethical risks

• Allows to address ethical issues before it’s too late

• Protects the organisation’s reputation

• Helps supporting an ethical culture

The importance of an open culture

© IBE

What are the pressures?Employees who felt pressured to

compromise their organisation’s ethical standards

What are the main sources of pressure?

• 16% of respondents in Europe say they have felt pressured.

• Pressures are most severe in Portugal (22%) and France (20%).

• Pressures are less severe in Ireland (11%) and Spain and the UK (both 12%).

Source: IBE (2018) Ethics at work: survey of employees – United Kingdom

© IBE

Is misconduct common?How many employees are aware of

misconduct at work?Employees who are aware of misconduct are

also more likely to have:

• Lenient attitudes towards ethically questionable workplace attitudes (e.g. favouring friends and family when recruiting or awarding contracts: 22% vs 18%).

• Negative perceptions of how frequently honesty is practices at work (66% vs 87%)

• Negative outlook on how the organisation engages with its stakeholders (e.g. issues of right and wrong are discussed in team meetings: 31% vs 15%)

Source: IBE (2018) Ethics at work: survey of employees – Europe

© IBE

What do people need to speak up about?

© IBE

Source: IBE (2018), Ethics at Work, 2018 Survey of Employees – United Kingdom

Why is it worrying?Employees aware of misconduct who raise their ethical

concerns

Employees seem more likely to raise their

concerns compared with 2015

HOWEVER

Still a significant proportion do not

report. Source: IBE (2018) Ethics at work: survey of employees – Europe

© IBE

The journey of those who speak up

Why might people not speak up?

Group discussion

© IBE

What is the organisations’ response?

SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS

ARE ISSUES ADDRESSED?

Of those who do speak up, how many are satisfied with the outcome?

Respondents who believe that their organisation disciplines employees who violate ethics:

51% of employees who have been aware of misconduct and raised their

concerns report that they are satisfied with their organisation’s response

Only 53% of employees believe their organisation disciplines employees

who violate its ethical standards

© IBE

Source: IBE (2018), Ethics at Work, 2018 Survey of Employees – Europe

The journey of those who speak up

What can your organisation do to encourage people to raise their concerns?

What is the role of a professional body?

Group discussion

© IBE

THE PURPOSE OF THE IES & IAQM CODE OF CONDUCT

From the Institution’s perspective…

Prevent harm to the Institution or professionCode of Conduct + associated disciplinary procedure attempts to minimise inappropriate behaviour by members, which whilst often not of legal significance, might damage the reputation of the Institution and the profession as a whole.

Building identityA public statement of our values.

Shows who our stakeholders are - not just members, but also the public interest.

53

Mark S Frankel, Professional codes: Why, how, and with what impact? (1989):

“This process of self-criticism, codification, and consciousness-raising reinforces or redefines the profession’s collective responsibility and is an important learning and maturing experience for both individual members and the profession.”

https://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=FRAPCW&proxyId=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1007%2FBF00382575

From the public’s perspective…

Public interestAt the heart of any professional code of conduct is a commitment to act in the public interest.

This builds trust in the profession and individual environmental scientists. Public trust is necessary for the profession to operate effectively.

At the core of our organisational strategy is the impact that we seek to sustain “an environmental science profession that is informed, trusted, and a positive contributor to a healthy, sustainable society”.

From the member’s perspective…

Common standardAn ethical foundation, preventing a ‘race to the bottom’ by ensuring universal standards.

A defensive toolIf a member feels under pressure from a manager or client to behave in an unethical way, you should contact the Institution to determine whether this would result in the breach of the code.

If a particular course of action would lead to a breach, this gives you a powerful tool to argue that not only you, but your professional body/whole profession, view a particular course of action as unethical.

The codes: IAQM

The codes: IES

Members shall:1. exercise professional skills and judgement to the best of their ability and

discharge professional responsibilities safely and with integrity;2. strive to ensure the enhancement of environmental quality and sustainable

development and the mitigation of environmental harm;3. have full regard for the public interest at all times;4. commit to maintaining professional competence by undertaking appropriate

continuing professional development and give all reasonable assistance to further the education, training and professional development of others; and

5. promote the Institution’s object, aims, values and standing.

Andrew Brien, Regulating Virtue: Formulating, Engendering and Enforcing Corporate Ethical Codes(1996):

“Codes minister only to the ethical since the unscrupulous will not be persuaded to be ethical or deterred from wrongdoing by a code any more than a thief will be reformed by reading the criminal law.”

https://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRIRVF&proxyId=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2Fbpej19961516

62

Types of complaints we get

1.Unprofessional language/actions2.Perceived mistakes in the application of methodologies or

regulation3.Plagiarism4.Claiming expertise outside their specialism

HANDLING DILEMMAS

63

IBE’s ethical test for a business decision

Transparency• Do I mind others knowing what I have decided?Effect• Who does my decision affect or hurt?Fairness• Would my decision be considered fair by those affected?

© IBE

ANSWERING THE ETHICS COMPETENCES IN YOUR CHARTERSHIP APPLICATION

67

68

D3. Demonstrate an understanding of environmental ethical dilemmas

D4. Comply with relevant codes of conduct and practice

E1. Demonstrate understanding and compliance with relevant codes of conduct

D3. Demonstrate an understanding of environmental ethical dilemmas

D4. Comply with relevant codes of conduct and practice

Demonstrate an understanding of environmental ethical dilemmas

Demonstrate an understanding of environmental ethical dilemmas

Can you think of an ethical dilemma that you have experienced at work?

Why was it a dilemma?

What frameworks did you use to resolve it?

Group discussion

ethical issues and the air quality practitioner

Documents