Resources: How Engineering Codes of Ethics Are Evolving

Why Engineering Codes Change

Engineering codes of ethics are periodically revised to address changes in professional practice, technology, law, public expectations, and the types of risk created by engineered systems.

Earlier codes were often written when engineering organizations, communication systems, project-delivery methods, and professional relationships were less complex. Modern engineers may work across several jurisdictions, participate in multidisciplinary teams, manage digital information, use automated analytical systems, and make decisions having long-term environmental or societal consequences.

Code revisions may modernize outdated terminology, clarify an existing duty, add a newly recognized concern, reorganize the code, or transfer a subject to a separate organizational policy.

Ethical Principles That Remain Constant

The wording and organization of engineering codes may change, but several principles remain consistent across decades and disciplines.

Public Protection

Engineers are expected to give the safety, health, and welfare of the public the highest professional priority.

Professional Competence

Engineers should accept assignments only when qualified and maintain the knowledge necessary to perform their services responsibly.

Truthful Communication

Reports, testimony, calculations, estimates, and public statements should be objective, supportable, and free from material misrepresentation.

Conflicts of Interest

Interests that could influence—or reasonably appear to influence—professional judgment should be avoided or appropriately disclosed.

Faithful Professional Service

Engineers should serve clients and employers responsibly without allowing loyalty or commercial interests to override public protection.

Professional Accountability

Engineers should accept responsibility for their work, acknowledge material errors, and cooperate with appropriate professional and regulatory processes.

Not Every Revision Has the Same Meaning

A reliable comparison should distinguish among several different forms of change.

1

Added

A new ethical responsibility or expressly identified subject is inserted into the code.

2

Expanded

An existing duty is applied to additional technologies, professional relationships, risks, or affected parties.

3

Reorganized

Existing obligations are placed into a different structure, hierarchy, or group of responsibilities.

4

Consolidated

Several detailed provisions are combined into a shorter or more general requirement.

5

Relocated

A subject is moved from the ethics code into another policy governing conduct, conflicts, discrimination, publications, or organizational participation.

6

Removed or Omitted

Language is eliminated without an equivalent provision appearing in the revised code. Even then, another law, rule, contract, or organizational policy may continue to address the conduct.

A provision should not be described as eliminated merely because the revised code uses different words or places the duty under a different heading.

The 2020 ASCE Code of Ethics Revision

The American Society of Civil Engineers adopted a comprehensive revision of its Code of Ethics on October 26, 2020. ASCE described it as the first comprehensive rewrite in more than 45 years.

Earlier Structure

Traditional Canon Format

The previous ASCE Code used fundamental canons supported by guidelines to practice. Ethical duties were organized principally by subject.

The older structure addressed public protection, competence, faithful service, truthful statements, professional reputation, environmental considerations, fair treatment, and related professional duties.

Current Structure

Hierarchy of Stakeholders

The 2020 Code organizes ethical responsibilities around five stakeholder groups presented in order of priority.

Society
Natural and built environment
Profession
Clients and employers
Peers

ASCE expressly provides that protection of public health, safety, and welfare takes precedence over every other responsibility. The stakeholder structure helps engineers determine priority when legitimate duties conflict.

The revision also modernized and shortened the language, addressed corruption more directly, and integrated responsibilities involving sustainability, environmental stewardship, fair treatment, professional development, and stakeholder impacts.

Review the current ASCE Code of Ethics

Changes in Other Major Frameworks

Other organizations have modernized their codes through revisions, clarifications, and related policies. They have not all followed the same approach.

General Professional Engineering

NSPE

The NSPE Code retains its traditional organization of fundamental canons, rules of practice, and professional obligations. The published code identifies July 2019 as its revision date.

Its continuing value lies in its stable treatment of public protection, competence, truthful communication, conflicts, confidentiality, responsible professional service, and accountability.

New technological and professional situations are frequently addressed through Board of Ethical Review opinions rather than by repeatedly rewriting the fundamental code.

Review the NSPE Code

Electrical and Computer Engineering

IEEE

The IEEE Code of Ethics was updated in June 2020. Its current framework expressly addresses public safety and welfare, sustainable development, privacy, correction of errors, disclosure of technological risks, fair treatment, conflicts of interest, bribery, and responsible technical communication.

IEEE also develops separate standards and guidance concerning artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, privacy, cybersecurity, and the incorporation of human values into technology.

These supplemental publications should not automatically be described as amendments to the IEEE Code itself. They may provide more specialized guidance within the Code’s broader ethical principles.

Review the IEEE Code

Mechanical Engineering

ASME

ASME continues to use a traditional code organized around fundamental principles and canons. Its October 2021 ethics policy retains public protection, competence, faithful service, truthful communication, conflicts of interest, environmental consideration, and professional integrity.

ASME also maintains separate policies addressing conflicts of interest, organizational conduct, and discrimination. Those policies can apply to ASME members or activities without becoming identical to the Code of Ethics for Engineers.

Review ASME Ethics Resources

Chemical and Process Engineering

AIChE

The AIChE Code applies traditional professional duties to chemical processes, industrial hazards, environmental effects, technical review, and public and employee safety.

Its treatment of environmental protection and consequences to present and future health illustrates how discipline-specific risks can be incorporated into an established public-protection framework.

Review the AIChE Code

Aerospace Engineering

AIAA

The AIAA Code emphasizes public welfare, objective technical communication, competence, conflicts of interest, professional credit, and responsible conduct involving aerospace technologies.

Related policies separately address publications, organizational conduct, harassment, conflicts, and reporting within AIAA activities. These should be distinguished from the member Code of Ethics when discussing formal revisions.

Review the AIAA Code

Licensure Framework

NCEES

NCEES periodically updates its Model Law and Model Rules to provide recommended licensing and professional-conduct language for consideration by state and territorial boards.

The August 2025 Model Rules continue to emphasize uniform licensing standards, professional ethics, and protection of public health, safety, and welfare.

NCEES provisions are models rather than automatically controlling law. Each jurisdiction decides whether to adopt, modify, or omit particular language.

Review the NCEES Model Rules

Sustainability and Environmental Responsibility

Environmental effects have been recognized within engineering ethics for many years. Recent frameworks increasingly express these responsibilities through sustainability, resilience, life-cycle performance, and stewardship of natural and built systems.

Engineering Applications of Sustainability

Evaluating energy and material use over a project’s service life
Considering durability, maintenance, repair, and replacement
Reducing preventable pollution and environmental damage
Improving infrastructure reliability and resilience
Evaluating reasonably foreseeable long-term consequences
Considering the effect of a project on surrounding systems
Avoiding the transfer of unreasonable risks to other communities or future users
Communicating environmental limitations and tradeoffs truthfully

Sustainability does not provide a license to disregard technical standards, public safety, economic limitations, property rights, contractual requirements, or competent engineering judgment. Ethical practice requires the engineer to identify material consequences and evaluate them within the scope of the assignment and governing requirements.

A broad organizational sustainability initiative should not be confused with a binding ethical canon unless the applicable code actually incorporates the requirement.

Resilience and Long-Term Public Welfare

Resilience has become more prominent as engineered systems have grown increasingly interconnected and communities have become more dependent on continuously available infrastructure.

From Immediate Safety to Continued Function

Traditional engineering ethics focused strongly on preventing immediate injury or failure. Modern practice also considers whether essential systems can withstand disruption, recover from damaging events, and continue serving the public.

Resilience may involve redundant electrical service, flood-resistant infrastructure, backup water supplies, robust communications, emergency access, adaptable structures, cybersecurity, and recovery planning.

The ethical connection arises when a foreseeable system failure could cause significant public harm. The appropriate level of resilience still depends on the governing codes, project objectives, probability and consequence of failure, available resources, and the engineer’s professional scope.

Privacy, Cybersecurity, and Digital Systems

Earlier engineering codes were developed before digital systems routinely controlled infrastructure, stored personal information, and influenced safety-critical decisions.

Privacy

Responsible Use of Information

Engineers may need to consider the collection, retention, access, security, and authorized use of personal, operational, or confidential data.

Cybersecurity

Protection of Critical Systems

Inadequate digital security can affect power, water, transportation, manufacturing, communications, building controls, and other systems serving the public.

Automation

Human Oversight and Accountability

Engineers remain responsible for understanding the limitations of automated tools and applying appropriate review to consequential engineering decisions.

These topics often represent new applications of familiar duties involving competence, confidentiality, risk disclosure, public protection, truthful communication, and responsible charge.

Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision-Making

Artificial intelligence is not yet addressed with the same level of detail in every engineering code. Nevertheless, existing ethical principles provide a strong foundation for its responsible use.

Established Duties Applied to AI

Understand the capabilities and limitations of the tool
Independently verify safety-critical results
Protect confidential and controlled information
Avoid presenting generated material as verified engineering judgment
Disclose material limitations and uncertainty
Maintain responsible professional oversight
Correct discovered errors
Avoid deceptive claims about accuracy or capability
Consider foreseeable public consequences

New AI guidance frequently supplements rather than replaces general engineering codes. A separate AI policy, recommended practice, or technical standard should not automatically be described as a formal amendment to a society’s Code of Ethics.

Bribery, Fraud, Corruption, and Procurement Integrity

Improper influence has long been inconsistent with engineering ethics. Modern codes may address the subject more directly and use clearer language concerning bribery, fraud, corruption, gifts, commissions, and deceptive competition.

ASCE’s 2020 revision expressly strengthened the visibility of its opposition to bribery, fraud, and corruption. Other frameworks address the same concerns through provisions governing truthful conduct, faithful service, conflicts of interest, improper payments, and protection of public trust.

Why Procurement Conduct Is an Engineering-Ethics Issue

Improper influence can affect consultant selection, product approval, inspection findings, change orders, technical recommendations, acceptance of deficient work, and allocation of public funds. The ethical concern is not limited to the exchange of money; it includes any undisclosed benefit capable of compromising professional judgment.

Fair Treatment and Professional Conduct

Some modern codes and related organizational policies expressly address fair treatment, discrimination, harassment, and respectful professional conduct.

ASCE added an eighth canon addressing fair treatment in 2017. Its 2020 comprehensive rewrite subsequently incorporated responsibilities involving respectful and fair professional relationships within the stakeholder-based framework.

IEEE includes provisions addressing fair treatment and avoidance of harmful conduct. ASME addresses certain conduct through separate organizational policies in addition to its traditional engineering Code of Ethics.

Connection to Engineering Practice

Fair-treatment provisions have a direct professional application when improper personal considerations interfere with objective decisions concerning competence, assignment of responsibility, technical review, safety reporting, employment evaluation, professional credit, consultant selection, standards development, or access to information needed for safe practice.

Duties to Report, Disclose, and Correct

Modern codes increasingly provide direct guidance concerning disclosure of danger, correction of errors, reporting of violations, and cooperation with appropriate authorities.

Traditional Concern

Avoiding Unethical Conduct

Earlier codes commonly emphasized what engineers should not do, such as practice outside their competence, make deceptive statements, conceal conflicts, or approve deficient work.

Modern Emphasis

Affirmative Professional Action

Current frameworks may place greater emphasis on what engineers should actively do, including disclose risk, correct errors, report certain violations, seek critical review, and communicate material consequences.

The extent of an enforceable reporting obligation varies by jurisdiction. A society code may encourage disclosure, while a state rule may impose a narrower, broader, or differently worded duty. Confidentiality, due process, public danger, and the engineer’s degree of knowledge must all be considered.

How Code Changes Affect State-Licensed PEs

A revision by a professional society does not automatically amend a state’s engineering practice act or licensing-board rules.

1

State Law Controls Licensure

Statutes and administrative rules determine enforceable licensing obligations within the jurisdiction.

2

Society Codes Provide Guidance

Professional codes can help interpret broadly stated duties and identify responsible approaches to emerging problems.

3

Adoption May Differ

A board may adopt NCEES-style language, develop independent rules, incorporate another code, or address the same conduct using different terminology.

4

Several Frameworks May Apply

A PE may simultaneously be subject to state rules, employer policies, contractual obligations, society codes, agency requirements, and professional standards.

When two requirements appear inconsistent, the engineer should first determine which law and licensing-board rules govern the services. A voluntary society code cannot authorize conduct prohibited by the applicable jurisdiction.

How Revisions Relate to Ethics Continuing Education

Comparing earlier and current codes can provide valuable ethics instruction by demonstrating how professional responsibilities are applied to changing conditions.

A qualifying course might examine how a code revision affects public protection, conflicts of interest, environmental responsibility, technological risk, professional communication, or accountability. It should explain both the enduring ethical principle and the reason the newer language was adopted.

Studying a revised society code does not automatically satisfy every state’s ethics requirement. The activity must meet the applicable board’s requirements concerning subject matter, instructional method, provider qualifications, documentation, and completion.

A general ethics course should not be represented as a state laws-and-rules course unless it specifically satisfies that jurisdiction’s requirements.

Review your state’s PE requirements

How to Verify the Current Version of a Code

Engineers should avoid relying on an undated copy, old training presentation, unofficial summary, or superseded version of a professional code.

Verification Checklist

Obtain the code from the organization’s official website
Identify the adoption, amendment, or revision date
Determine whether the document is current, historical, or proposed
Distinguish the ethics code from a code of conduct or policy statement
Compare the revised wording with the actual previous version
Review official commentary explaining the amendment
Determine whether a state board adopted comparable language
Retain the version applicable when the conduct occurred

Historical versions may remain important. For example, ASCE states that complaints concerning conduct occurring before October 26, 2020, continue to be reviewed under the previous ASCE Code.

Frequently Asked Questions

Have traditional engineering ethics been replaced?

No. Public protection, competence, honesty, conflicts of interest, faithful service, and accountability remain central. Newer provisions generally clarify how these duties apply to modern conditions.

Is sustainability now mandatory for every PE?

Not as a single uniform national rule. Its significance depends on applicable laws, codes, contractual duties, state-board requirements, the governing professional framework, and the nature of the engineering service.

Does every code now address artificial intelligence?

No. Some organizations provide specialized AI guidance outside their general ethics code. Existing duties involving competence, verification, confidentiality, truthfulness, and public protection still apply.

Does removal of a sentence eliminate the duty?

Not necessarily. The provision may have been consolidated, rewritten, relocated, or addressed through another rule. The old and current frameworks must be compared as a whole.

Are society-code revisions legally binding on all PEs?

No. State statutes and licensing-board rules determine enforceable licensure obligations. Society codes may bind members or provide influential professional guidance.

Can changes to ethics codes qualify as an ethics-course subject?

Yes, when presented as substantive professional instruction and when the activity satisfies the applicable board’s continuing-education requirements.