| Ethics and Sustainable Development Initiatives 
 in ConstructionThis month, our abstracts come from Sara Parkin's two excellent papers published 
 in the ICE Civil Engineering Special Issue #2, Volume 138, November 2000. Photocopies 
 can be obtained from the ICE library (+44 20 7665 2251, or library@ice.org.uk) 
 for a fee of £5, but first download a photocopy request form from www.ice.org.uk/library/icepbprq.html. Last month we took a depressing but, we think, a realistic view of our global 
 environmental problems. This month we focus on what we can do as project managers, 
 given our current "political-correctness" constraints. At a minimum 
 we can polish up our ethics with respect to our environmental responsibilities 
 and as background for this our comments this month come from two very thoughtful 
 papers published by the Institution of Civil Engineers by Sara Parkin, Director 
 of Forum for the Future, a sustainable development charity in the UK. Parkin takes a pragmatic view of sustainability. Addressing engineers, 
              but equally project managers, she says ". . .it is so important 
              for everyone to understand sustainable development sufficiently 
              to be able to ensure that their individual actions, and the decisions 
              they make that influence others, add as little as possible 
              to the total burden on the environment. We cannot avoid treading 
              on the Earth, but we can ensure that we tread as little as possible." 
              She points to the 1970s "all important equation" which 
              states I = P x C x T where I is the impact on the 
              environment; P is the number of people; C is the consumption 
              of energy (or the surrogate measure "Gross National Product"); 
              and T is the technology of consumption. Given this, research in the 1990s by Paul Ekins and Michael Jacobs indicates 
 that to achieve "sustainability" we would now have to reduce our impact 
 on the environment by around 50%. If, however, the then anticipated growth in 
 world population to 10 billion by 2050 is taken into account where 95% of consumption 
 will take place in developing countries, then the reduction in consumption (T) 
 would have to be around 81% if economic growth took place only in the "South". 
 It would be 89% if it tool place only in the "North" and 91% if it 
 took place in the "North" and "South".  Parkin counsels not to argue over the precise figures but to examine the orders 
 of magnitude. For example, while a 50% reduction in environmental impact reduction 
 might sound like an achievable target, 80-90% sounds highly improbable, if not 
 entirely impossible. Yet, we should examine our technological processes more 
 closely. Parking explains "It has been estimated that for every 1000 kg 
 of "stuff" (about half of it food) consumed each year by an adult person 
 living in a developed nation such as Britain, another 10,000 kg of "stuff" 
 has to be mobilized. And while we pay across the counter for the first 1000 kg, 
 the bill for the other 9000 kg (water, aggregate, waste, pollution, etc.) is 
 picked up by the environment. Either that, or it is picked up by other people, 
 sometimes out of other budgets (e.g. health) and often in other countries." "Waste experts also point out that for every tonne of resource consumed 
 as a finished product, only 100 kg is still in the household six months later." 
 One suspects that the position in North America could be even worse. From all 
 this we may conclude that as a result of our "economy support" processes, 
 only 1% of the original raw materials end up in long-term durables, leaving ample 
 room for efficiency gains, and progress towards sustainability. While this discussion 
 may be comprehensible to technically minded people, part of our problem is that 
 financial accounting systems do not include a reckoning of the missing or hidden 
 costs and so, in construction, does not come into an owner's equation.  For example, project management clients typically want the lowest capital cost 
 and timely delivery for a given project's "product". Ethically, it 
 should be a natural step for project director's and managers to question other 
 "project values" in its project charter that may not be stated explicitly. 
 What is it they value in the end product? Is it really what they are looking 
 for? How healthy or comfortable will a resulting facility be? Or what about the 
 "human capital" involved? And how long will this product last and does 
 it make the best use of environmental resources? Most young people now graduating or leaving school know little or nothing about 
 how the world's eco systems work. Therefore, the type of ethical approach described 
 will require a massive cultural shift in public thinking. The project management 
 profession should be the first in line to lead with cultural change 
 projects that bring about this vital-for-survival transformation. 
 
 |