Professional and social issues of the ICT field
2. global features of the field of ict
2.3. The risk society: the context of CSR
The impact of the engineer’s acts stresses the fact that engi-neering can involve significant risk for the collective wellbeing or for the health and safety of people and for the environment. So the exercise of the engineering profession involves
understand-ing “[…] the ethical dimension of his technical actions; based on the ‘anticipation’ of the foreseeable consequences of his actions”
(Goujon and Dubreuil, 2001). In this sense, engineers are respon-sible for providing the technical information concerning the risks and dangers that a process, product or system can have for society. In this light, this social context is the place where the engineering profession is developed and exerts influence and, simultaneously, is modified by the new needs of the society. For this reason, the professional ethics that we pursue is obliged to acknowledge the features of this context (the risk society) in order to know how it should work, taking into account the harmful and devastating effects on the society, when formulating its guiding criterion. One current way to characterize the global society which is, narrowly, related with technology is through the
“risk society” (Beck, 1992). This is the present social reality and one of the most typical features of it is the risk.
In accordance with Beck, the risk is a situation in which we are in a constant relationship with threats and dangers that are brought about by the very process of modernization of the soci-ety we are living in. At present we are interested in the ways that this risk comes out within the society. On one hand, we have damage to the planet such as the pollution and the contamina-tion, and endangered species. On the other hand, we have the prediction and control of the future consequences of human actions and the diverse undesirable consequences of radicalized modernity. Paradoxically, owing to the unexpected effects of this modernity the dimension of the future is not under control and at this point technological development has an special lead-ing role, meanlead-ing, technology has created its advantages and, at the same time, its own risks to the detriment of the safety of society.
In this line we find out an outstanding figure, Jacques Ellul.
From what he says in his work Le Bluff technologique (1988) the effects of technical progress on contemporary society are
unfore-seeable. This work is focused on the question of prediction of technical progress and he distinguished between: the lack of fore-sight, the relative unforeseeable and the absolute unforeseeable.
From the view point of the risk, the matter under study, the rela-tive unforeseeable is the base for the development of risk man-agement. The relative unforeseeable is “The result of an event from which it is not possible, reasonably, to anticipate, as much the existence as the date”. In other words, there is an uncertainty embedded within the technical progress and there are two paths to take in order to face it: to be always lying in wait with expen-sive measures (economical, politics, human resources, etc.), or living with the possibility of accident and disorder, accepting that the probability of its occurring is small or that the consequences will be minor. The risk society has to confront this technologi-cal uncertainty because techno-scientific development evolves so fast, beyond the predictions of the experts and professionals.
From this last point and according with (Bilbao, Fuertes and Guibert, 2006) the role of the professional of the technology, in our case, the engineer, should incorporate in his profes-sional profile the virtue of prudence, practical wisdom when making decisions in the workplace. Through prudence, as a way to achieve the welfare of humankind, the professional is able to anticipate, weigh up and assume the consequences of the actions raised in its deliberation process. In other words, the management of risk within the engineering profession has its own requirements and one of these should be to have the appropriate prudence when the deliberation concerns precisely these important decisions for which the result is not clear and is even indeterminate (Aristotle). Additionally, because risk is a part of the exercise of the engineering profession and, con-sequently, of societal cohabitation, it is necessary to exert an effective control on the decisions made, at least from the self-control of the professional community through, for instance, deontological codes.
So, engineers, as decisions makers, are responsible for the consequences derived from their actions because responsibil-ity always has a direct relationship with the effects produced by actions. Therefore, the engineer, as a member of a commu-nity of professionals that belongs to a corporation has his own responsibility and consequently it is legitimate to look to CSR for the whole of these actions and responsibilities versus society.
One starting point for the implementation of these professional responsibilities (actions) to benefit the social reality and contrib-ute to its development should be CSR through its deontological codes in order to confront the technological disorders caused in the different spheres (social, environmental, politics, etc.) of the risk society. These disorders have major consequences for people and the natural environment, and they therefore involve ethics, at present, a global ethic.
3. Bibliography
accrEditation board for EnginEEring and tEchnology
(ABET). 2007. Criteria for acrediting engineering programs.
Retrieved November 15, 2011, from http://www.hcmut.edu.vn/
abet/E1%20EAC%20Criteria.pdf.
accrEditation board for EnginEEring and tEchnology
(ABET). ABET code of conduct, retrieved October 24, 2011, from http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/
abet-governance-document.pdf.
aMErican councilof EnginEEring coMpaniEs (ACEC), retrieved November 15, 2011, from http://www.acec.org/about/index.cfm.
arriEta, b., and c. dE la cruz (2005), La dimensión ética de la responsabilidad social. Universidad de Deusto.
associationfor coMputing MachinEry (ACM). ACM code of ethics and professional conduct, retrieved October 24, 2011, from http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.htm.
bEck, u. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage.
bilbao, g., J. fuErtEs and J. M. guibErt (2006), Ética para ingenie-ros. Desclée De Brouwer.
cortina, a. (2009), Ética de la razón cordial. Educar en la ciudadanía en el siglo XXI. Nobel
cronan, t.p., and d.E. douglas (2006), “Toward a compre-hensive ethical behavior model for information technology”, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, vol. 18, nº 1, i-ix.
davis, M. (2001), “Three myths about codes of engineering eth-ics”, Technology and Society Magazine, vol 20, nº 3, pp. 8-14.
Ellul, J. (1988), Le Bluff technologique, Hachette.
gottErbarn, d. (1998), “Two Approaches to Computer Ethics:
The Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice”, 1998. Retrieved October 24, 2011, from http://
www.sdresearch.org/Published%20Papers/Computer_Ethics_the_
Software_Engineering_COde.pdf.
— (2001), “Informatics and professional responsibility”, Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 7, nº 2, pp. 221-230.
gouJon, p., and b. h. dubrEuil (2001), Technology and Ethics. A European Quest for Responsible Engineering. Peeters.
grodzinsky, f.s. (2000), “The development of the ‘Ethical’ ICT professional”, Computers and Society, vol. 30, nº 1, pp. 3-7.
harris, c.E., M. davis, M.s. pritchard and M.J. rabins (1996),
“Engineering ethics: What? Why? How? And When?”, Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 85, nº 2, 93-96.
haws, d.r. (2001), “Ethics Instruction in Engineering Education:
A (Mini) Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Engineering Education, vol.
90, nº 2, pp. 223-229.
institutE for ElEctrical and ElEctronic EnginEErs (IEEE).
IEEE code of ethics, retrieved October 24, 2011, from http://
www.ieee.org/about/whatis/code.html.
kaptEin, M., and M.s. schwartz (2008), “The Effectiveness of Business Codes: A Critical Examination of Existing Studies and the Development of an Integrated Research Model”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 77, nº 2, pp. 111-127.
lynch, t., and r. klinE (2000), “Engineering Practice and Engineering Ethics”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol.
25, no. 2, pp. 195-225.
national sociEtyof profEssional EnginEErs. NSPE code of ethics, retrieved October 24, 2011, from http://www.nspe.org/
Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html.
o’dwyEr, b., and g. MaddEn (2006), “Ethical codes of conduct in Irish companies: A survey of code content and enforcement procedures”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 63, nº 3, pp. 217-236.
shuMan, l.J., M. bEstErfiEld-sacrE and J. Mcgourty (2005),
“The ABET ‘Professional skills’, Can they be taught? Can they be assessed?”, Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, nº 1, pp.
41-55.
spinEllo, r.a. (2001), “Code and moral values in cyberspace”, Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 3, nº 2, pp. 137-150.
stohl, c., M. stohl and l. popova (2009), “A New Generation of Corporate Codes of Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol.
90, nº 4, pp. 607-622.
unitEd nations global coMpact: 1999. Retrieved November 17, 2011 from http://www.unglobalcompact.org/.
wEizEnbauM, J. (1972), “The impact of the computer on soci-ety”, republished in Computers, Ethics and Social Values. Johnson and Nissenbaum, Prentice Hall, (ed.), pp. 554.
thE EssEntial prEMisE