By Alan Chenoweth CEnvP HLMEIANZ

For environmental practitioners, the principles of professional ethics focus on our responsibilities towards those people who place their trust in our expertise. Environmental ethics, on the other hand, address our moral responsibilities towards the natural world and ensuring a sustainable future, often associated with personal values and morals.

As professionals with environmental knowledge, skills and experience, we have ethical obligations to our clients, the wider community and the environment. These responsibilities do not always align, and many ethical practitioners need to reconcile their environmental values with professional ethics.

Professions generally have an obligation to provide their expertise to those who commission their services, placing the interest of others above their own self-interest and personal opinions. In performing this role, professionals are trusted by clients and by the community. This trust needs to be earned and maintained by ethical practice, reputation and continuing professional development. In environmental practice, professionalism and trust are reinforced by Institute membership, the Certified Environmental Practitioner (CEnvP)Scheme and the EIANZ Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

The environmental profession attracts students interested in and committed to conservation, but many of the available graduate jobs are about managing environmental damage associated with development. For example, young ecologists surveying the environmental values of a native forest habitat may feel conflicted if their work is part of a land development application. While a ‘best-for-environment’ outcome may be to retain the habitat, their professional obligation is to expertly assist their client, without imposing their personal values. However, graduates generally have little or no training in ethical decision-making and are largely socialised in their early years of employment according to their workplace culture, standards and (hopefully) wise mentoring.

When ethical questions are raised by early-career team members (e.g. expressing some moral discomfort with a project), a widespread response by senior managers is advice to ‘re-frame’ the problem so that it becomes ethically acceptable. Some ‘re-framing’ approaches are morally invalid and consist of little more than justifying unethical practice in a client’s interests.

However, there are valid ways for examining ethical dilemmas through a different lens. The EIANZ Code of Ethics requirement to provide advice only within one’s area of expertise (Practice competently; Section b) Only practice and offer services in functional areas and specialisations in which one is appropriately qualified, experienced and competent) is often the first consideration.

For example, while a project may be controversial because of its likely traffic impacts, the soil contamination expert need not and should not offer opinions on that subject. Another useful and valid approach, and one which can frame ethical conversations, is the concept of ‘decision-space’ – what does the brief require us to do, what advice are we being asked to provide, and what decisions are out of our hands? For example, if the project role of a consultancy firm is just to assess water quality impacts to the best of their professional capability, it is not their role to balance environmental values against the economic and social benefits of development – that is someone else’s role (usually the regulatory agency). Of course, this does not absolve ethical practitioners from raising valid concerns regarding the acceptability or otherwise of environmental impacts, within their areas of expertise, even if these objections are ignored by clients or overridden by project managers.

Working within project teams provides an important context to our ethical decision-making. Many environmental assessments are complex and multi-disciplinary, where team dynamics affect decisions, and there is a tendency for ‘group-think’ (pressure to go along with the consensus) in a best-for-project approach. Some of the most difficult ethical decisions are those involving environmental ‘showstoppers’ (constraints which could prevent a project proceeding). While courteous practitioners should respect the ethical frameworks of other professions (interdisciplinary ethics), we also have a responsibility to speak for nature, because our profession is one of the few with non-human moral responsibilities.

When project team consensus is needed as to what is the ‘right’ thing to do, effective environmental practitioners need a combination of technical competence and persuasive capacity to present a case for the environment – some ethical dilemmas can be avoided if the facts and options can be persuasively argued.

To do so, environmental practitioners should understand their own position and strengths. Research interviews with seasoned environmental practitioners (as part of my PhD research) indicates that their ethical decisions are influenced by their ‘professional identity perspective’ i.e. how they perceive their main professional role. The research identified, as a preliminary finding and in very broad terms, five (5) professional identity perspectives:

1. The Objective Scientist: Investigates competently and reports accurately, providing specific information.
2. The Problem Solver: Applies technical skills and collaborative approaches to help solve defined problems.
3. The Balance Seeker: Seeks to balance competing interests, or to help groups find their own balance.
4. The Practice Manager: Maintains and grows a viable environment-related team by consistently doing good work for clients.
5. The Environmental Advocate: Uses professional capabilities to protect, enhance and advocate for the environment.

These appear to be based on personal morals and world views, further developed in early career roles, and which frame practice decisions. However, they are not fixed attributes (types) throughout a practitioner’s career, nor do they govern all ethical decisions. They are perspectives which environmental professionals can adopt and adapt to different roles and situations, analogous to De Bono’s ‘Thinking Hats’, and shed some light on how professional and environmental ethics can be reconciled with personal values in practice.  There is no implication that any of the above types is more ethical than any other, but there is value in considering ethical dilemmas from each of these perspectives.

These perspectives also help in defining an ethical ‘bottom line’ (what we consider acceptable or unacceptable), and the options available for dealing with situations which are ethically unacceptable. While each dilemma is different, and the first step is always to talk it through with a mentor, senior colleague or ethical hotline, the options generally fall into several categories:

• Closely examine if your personal values and morals should override the professional obligations associated with your role in this situation;
• Advocate for a better solution, influencing outcomes where and when possible; such that there is a clear (blame-free) record of your advice and advocacy;
• Re-frame the dilemma such that an environmentally harmful outcome is best-for-project (or best-for-career) or not within your decision space;
• Object and refuse to do something a client or manager (or Minister) wants, if necessary, by resigning or withdrawing from a project, or seeking a different career; or
• Accept that other considerations have overridden your concerns, and suffer the moral injury of doing something that is environmentally harmful

Ethical dilemmas can arise unexpectedly, and the best preparation is regular ethical conversations, considering possible scenarios (what would we do if our favourite client asked us to do ‘X’?). We all need to practice and strengthen our ‘ethical acceptability muscles’, to deal with awkward situations when they arise, rather than be caught off-guard (how did we end up in this situation? At what point in the project did we agree to go along with something so unacceptable?).

Open and frank workplace conversations, ensuring all team members contribute their professional identity perspectives (or take turns wearing different ‘hats’), will provide tools for addressing conflicts between professional ethics, environmental ethics and personal values.