Unit 5

Safety and Risk in Engineering

1.1 What is Safety?
Safety means freedom from unacceptable risk of harm. An engineering product
(bridge, car, software, chemical plant) is safe if its risks are judged to be
acceptable.
Key distinction:
 Absolute safety (zero risk) is impossible.
 Relative safety means risks have been reduced to a level that society is
willing to accept.
1.2 What is Risk?
Risk is the combination of the probability of a harmful event and the severity of
its consequences.

Risk =Likelihood of harm ×Severity of harm

Example:
 Driving a car: high likelihood but moderate severity per trip → moderate
risk.
 Nuclear power plant meltdown: very low likelihood but extremely high
severity → very high risk.
1.3 Types of Risk Engineers Must Consider

Type Description Example

Public risk Risk to general public who Bridge collapse, chemical

have no choice leak

Occupational Risk to workers on the job Construction site accidents

risk

Consumer risk Risk to product users Faulty airbags, contaminated

food

Environmenta Risk to ecosystems Oil spill, CO₂ emissions

l risk

Long-term Harm that appears years later Carcinogenic materials,

risk climate change

1.4 Acceptable Risk – The Ethical Question

How safe is safe enough? Engineers cannot eliminate all risk, but they must
reduce risk to a level that is:
 Informed – people know the risks.
 Voluntary – people have a choice (unlike forced exposure).
  Equitable – risks are not imposed on vulnerable groups without benefit.
Example: Building a dam provides electricity (benefit) to a city, but downstream
villages face flood risk. Is that acceptable? Ethical engineering requires fair
distribution of risk and benefit.
1.5 Risk Assessment
 Risk assessment is a systematic process used to identify potential
hazards, evaluate the risks associated with those hazards, and determine
appropriate measures to control or eliminate them to protect people,
assets, and the environment. It is a core element of managing workplace
safety and organizational risks.
1.5.1 Definition and Purpose
 Risk assessment aims to understand where harm could occur, who might
be harmed, and how severe the consequences might be. It helps prioritize
risk control efforts by focusing on the most significant risks and ensures
compliance with safety regulations and standards.
1.5.2 Risk Assessment Process - Steps
Most organizations follow a structured process for risk assessment, commonly
summarized in five steps:
1. Identify Hazards: Recognize any source, condition, or activity that could
cause harm. This can include physical hazards (e.g., machinery), chemical
hazards (e.g., toxic substances), biological agents (e.g., viruses),
environmental factors (e.g., natural disasters), and psychosocial risks
(e.g., stress).
2. Identify Who Might Be Harmed and How: Determine the individuals or
groups who may be affected by these hazards, such as employees,
contractors, visitors, or the public. Understand the nature of potential
harm—whether injury, illness, property damage, or business interruption.
3. Evaluate the Risks: Assess the likelihood of harm occurring and the
severity of its consequences. Ranking tools such as risk matrices or
qualitative/quantitative analysis are applied to estimate and prioritize
risks.
4. Implement Control Measures: Decide on effective ways to eliminate or
reduce risks, following the hierarchy of controls: elimination, substitution,
engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective
equipment (PPE) as a last resort. Controls are then put into practice.
5. Record Findings and Review: Document the risk assessment results and
control measures taken. Periodically review and update the assessment to
account for changes in processes, new hazards, incident learnings, or
regulatory updates.
1.5.3 Types of Risk Assessment
 Qualitative Risk Assessment: Uses descriptive categories (low, medium,
high) to assess risk, often preferred when quantitative data is limited.
  Quantitative Risk Assessment: Uses numerical data and statistical models
to calculate risk levels, common in financial, engineering, or
environmental sectors.
 Semi-Quantitative Risk Assessment: Combines elements of both
qualitative and quantitative approaches for a balanced analysis.

2. Impact of Technology Advancements

2.1 The Double-Edged Sword
Technology is not good or bad by itself – it depends on how humans use it. Every
major technological advancement brings both benefits and harms.

Technology Positive Impact Negative Impact

Automobile Mobility, economic Pollution, traffic deaths, urban

growth sprawl

Internet Access to information, Privacy loss, cyberbullying,

global connection addiction

Artificial Medical diagnosis, Job displacement, biased

Intelligence automation algorithms

Genetic Disease cures, higher Ethical concerns about "designer

engineering crop yields babies", biodiversity loss

2.2 Unintended Consequences

Engineers often focus on solving a specific problem, but technologies can
have unexpected side effects.
Example: Refrigerators used CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) as coolants – a great
engineering solution. Later, scientists discovered CFCs were destroying the
ozone layer. Engineers had to redesign refrigerators without CFCs.
Ethical lesson: Engineers must try to foresee second-order and third-order
effects of their designs.
2.3 The Pace of Change – Technological Momentum
Once a technology becomes widely used, it creates momentum – economic
investments, habits, infrastructure, laws – making it very hard to stop, even if it
becomes harmful.
Example: Fossil fuel energy. We know it causes climate change, but the entire
global economy depends on it. Engineers now face the challenge
of transitioning to clean energy without collapse.
2.4 The Engineer’s Responsibility
 Before development: Ask “Should we do this?” not just “Can we do
this?”
 During development: Monitor for early signs of harm.
  After deployment: Be ready to recall, modify, or explain risks.
2.5 Case Study: Social Media Algorithms
 Positive: Connect people, enable free speech.
 Negative: Algorithms designed for “engagement” have amplified
misinformation, hate speech, and mental health issues among teens.
 Ethical question: Should platform engineers redesign algorithms to
prioritize well-being over profit?
3. Newer Weapons and War Strategies
3.1 The Unique Ethics of Military Engineering
Engineers who work on weapons face a special ethical burden: their products are
designed to injure or kill. Even if the cause is just (defending a nation), the
means must be morally examined.
3.2 Categories of Modern Weapons

Type Example Ethical Concern

Autonomous Drones that identify and Who is responsible for a kill?

weapons fire without human Can a machine distinguish
control soldier from civilian?

Cyber weapons Malware that disrupts Can cause physical harm

power grids, banks, without bullets; difficult to
hospitals attribute blame.

Nuclear weapons ICBMs with multiple Mass destruction,

warheads indiscriminate killing, long-
term radiation.

Lethal “Slaughterbots” that Violates human dignity; no

autonomous hunt targets meaningful human control.
weapons (LAWS)

3.3 Key Ethical Concepts

 Discrimination: Weapons must distinguish between combatants and
non-combatants (civilians). Autonomous weapons struggle with this.
 Proportionality: The harm caused must not be excessive compared to
the military advantage gained.
 Meaningful human control: A human must make the final decision to
use lethal force, not an algorithm.
3.4 Case Study: Autonomous Drones
Scenario: A military engineer is asked to write software for a drone that can
identify “enemy combatants” using facial recognition and fire missiles without
human approval.
Arguments for refusal:
  Facial recognition has high error rates, especially for people of color.
 No algorithm can understand surrender, injury, or civilian context.
 Violates Geneva Conventions.

Arguments for acceptance:

 The drone could reduce risk to one’s own soldiers.
 If you don’t do it, someone else will.
Ethical engineering position: Many professional codes (e.g., IEEE, ACM) now
call for a ban on lethal autonomous weapons without meaningful human
control.
3.5 The Engineer’s Choice: Refuse or Redesign?
Engineers can:
 Refuse to work on weapons they find unethical (conscientious objection).
 Work within the system to add safety, transparency, and human
oversight.
 Advocate for international treaties (e.g., Campaign to Stop Killer Robots).

4. Multinational Corporations – Cross-Cultural Ethics

4.1 What Are Multinational Corporations (MNCs)?
MNCs operate in many countries. They design products in one country,
manufacture in another, and sell globally. Examples: Apple, Shell, Siemens, Tata.
4.2 The Ethical Challenge – Different Cultures, Different Norms
What is considered ethical varies across cultures. An MNC must decide: Which
rules should we follow?

Issue Country A Country B (host) Dilemma

(home)

Child labor Illegal, Common, legal Does the MNC refuse to

immoral hire children, even if it
means no local jobs?

Bribery Illegal Accepted as Pay to get permits, or lose

“facilitation contract?
payment”

Environmental Strict Weak or no Follow home standard

standard emissions enforcement (costly) or host standard
limits (cheaper but harmful)?

Working hours 40-hour 60-hour week, no Impose home standard or

 week overtime pay follow local practice?

4.3 Three Possible Ethical Strategies

Strategy Description Problem

Moral Follow home-country ethics May be impossible or

absolutism everywhere. disrespectful in host culture.

Cultural “When in Rome, do as the Can justify human rights

relativism Romans do.” abuses (slavery, child labor)
as “local custom.”

Ethical Respect local differences, but Requires judgment; not

pluralism uphold universal human rights always easy to define
(e.g., no child labor, no torture). universal minimum.

Most engineering codes take a pluralist approach: respect local culture, but
never violate basic safety, health, or human rights.
4.4 Case Study: Factory Collapse in Bangladesh (Rana Plaza, 2013)
 What happened: An eight-story building with garment factories
collapsed, killing over 1,100 workers.
 Cause: Building was unsafe; engineers had warned of cracks. But global
brands (MNCs) demanded low prices and fast delivery.
 Ethical failure: MNCs did not inspect or enforce safety standards in their
supply chains.
 Aftermath: The Accord on Fire and Building Safety – a legally binding
agreement between brands and unions – was created.
Lesson for engineers: If you work for an MNC that sources from low-cost
countries, you have a duty to audit safety throughout the supply chain, not just
in the headquarters.

5. Engineering as a Global Culture and Global Ethical Codes

5.1 How Engineering Creates a Global Culture
Engineering is becoming a global profession because:
 Technical knowledge is universal – Ohm’s law, thermodynamics, CAD
software work the same in India, Germany, or Brazil.
 Engineers migrate – Professionals work across borders.
 Global problems – Climate change, pandemics, infrastructure require
international collaboration.
 Common tools – English is often the working language; standards (ISO,
IEEE) are global.
5.2 But Culture Still Matters
Even though engineering science is universal, values and practices differ:

Aspect Western tendency Eastern tendency

Decision- Individual Group/consensus

making responsibility

Risk tolerance Lower (more Sometimes higher

regulation)

Hierarchy Flatter More respect for

seniority

Whistleblowin More accepted Seen as disloyalty

g

Example: A German engineer working in China might expect to report safety

violations to management; Chinese colleagues might see that as losing face for
the team.
5.3 Why We Need Global Ethical Codes
Currently, engineering ethics is mostly national. But problems (and solutions)
are global. A global code would help:
 Multinational teams – Everyone knows the rules.
 Offshore manufacturing – Consistent safety and labor standards.
 Disaster response – Engineers from different countries coordinate.
 Climate engineering – Decisions affect entire planet.
5.4 Examples of Existing Global/International Codes

Organization Code Name Key Principle

World Federation of Model Code of Sustainable

Engineering Ethics development, public
Organizations (WFEO) safety, honesty

Engineers Without Code of Conduct Respect local

Borders (EWB) communities, do no harm

IEEE Code of Ethics Hold safety and health

(global paramount, reject bribery
membership)

International Ethics IES Framework Competence, integrity,

Standards Coalition respect for environment

5.5 What a Global Ethical Code Should Include (Proposed)

Based on common elements in existing codes, a global engineering ethics code
would likely require:
1. Protect public safety and health – Above all other considerations.
 2. Practice sustainability – Consider future generations and the
environment.
3. Reject bribery and corruption – No exceptions for “local customs.”
4. Respect human rights – No child labor, no forced labor, fair wages.
5. Be transparent and honest – Disclose conflicts of interest.
6. Maintain competence – Only work in areas where qualified.
7. Whistleblower protection – Safe channels to report violations.
5.6 Challenges to a Global Code
 Enforcement: Who punishes a violator in another country?
 Cultural imperialism: Imposing Western values as “global” can be seen
as arrogance.
 Legal differences: What is illegal in one country may be legal in another.
 Differing priorities: A poor country may prioritize economic growth over
strict environmental rules.
Way forward: A global code should be aspirational (guidance) rather than
punitive, and developed through genuine international dialogue, not imposed by
one region.