If ever there were any doubt that climate change is an ethical issue then the landmark judgement by the Australian Federal Court in late May should settle the matter. The class action case brought, on behalf of all Australian children and teenagers, against Environment Minister Sussan Ley sought to prevent approving the Whitehaven coalmine extension project in New South Wales.

The court didn’t order the project should be stopped. Instead, it put the onus on the environment minister, finding she owes a duty of care to Australia’s young people not to cause them physical harm in the form of personal injury from climate change. Aspects of the profound duty of care finding, which provides the first step in a claim of negligence, are worth repeating:

“It is difficult to characterise in a single phrase the devastation that the plausible evidence presented in this proceeding forecasts for the children. As Australian adults know their country, Australia will be lost and the world as we know it gone as well.

The physical environment will be harsher, far more extreme and devastatingly brutal when angry. As for the human experience – quality of life, opportunities to partake in nature’s treasures, the capacity to grow and prosper – all will be greatly diminished.

Lives will be cut short. Trauma will be far more common and good health harder to hold and maintain.

None of this will be the fault of nature itself. It will largely be inflicted by the inaction of this generation of adults, in what might fairly be described as the greatest inter-generational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of humans upon the next.

To say that the children are vulnerable is to understate their predicament.”

Like most professional bodies, Te Kāhui Whaihanga New Zealand Institute of Architects (NZIA) has, through the New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB), a code of ethics. Distressingly, despite caring enough about this issue to make a submission to the government’s He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission, there is no mention of climate change in the NZRAB’s code. While it does say a registered architect must carry out their “professional activities with reasonable skill, care, and diligence”, you won’t find any mention of the words ‘sustainable’ or ‘sustainability’, let alone ‘carbon’.

Contrast this with Engineering New Zealand’s Code of Ethical Conduct, which states under “Obligations in the Public Interest” that engineers must, in the course of their engineering activities:

“i. have regard to reasonably foreseeable effects on the environment from those activities; and

ii. have regard to the need for sustainable management of the environment. In this rule, sustainable management means management that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations… to meet their own reasonably foreseeable needs.”

Thanks to Massey University mathematician Robert McLachlan, who writes on climate change issues in the media and at planetaryecology.org, for alerting me to this difference between architects’ and engineers’ ethical standards. McLachlan notes the careful wording by Engineering New Zealand, asking: “What constitutes ‘having regard to’, and what behaviour would be regarded as unethical? What if you are asked to design a motorway or an airport?” Fair point but, unlike the NZRAB, at least the engineers bring climate change into the discussion.

McLachlan also pointed to a paper showing that British architects provide a good template that New Zealand architects might emulate. The RIBA: Code of Professional Conduct says: “Members should promote sustainable design and development principles in their professional activities”. More specifically, it also says:

“13.4 In performing professional services, Members shall advocate the design, construction, and operation of sustainable buildings and communities.

13.5 Members shall inform clients of sustainable practices suitable to their project and shall encourage their clients to adopt sustainable practices at the earliest opportunity…

13.7 Members must use reasonable endeavours to specify and use sustainable materials on their projects.

13.8 Members must use reasonable endeavours to minimise whole-life carbon and energy use.”

Bravo and dismay. The NZRAB’s tardiness to make climate change considerations central to the practice of architecture is difficult to explain. It also seems at odds with the 126 firms that have signed up to the aims of Architects Declare New Zealand (nz.architectsdeclare.com), which include:

“Raise awareness of the climate and biodiversity emergencies and the urgent need for action amongst our clients and supply chains.

Advocate for faster change in our industry towards regenerative design practices and a higher Governmental funding priority to support this.

Upgrade existing buildings for extended use as a more carbon efficient alternative to demolition and new build whenever there is a viable choice.”

The self-regulating ideas behind professional codes of conduct go back to one Lord (Henry) Benson, a UK accountant who, in 1984, promoted a set of nine professional principles – one of which says: “The governing body must set the ethical rules and professional standards which are to be observed by the members. These should be higher than those which can be established by the general law.” He also said that the rules and standards enforced by the governing body must be designed for the benefit of the public and not for the private advantage of members.

Perhaps the NZRAB, to acknowledge the peril of “the greatest inter-generational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of humans upon the next”, should go back to first principles and strive to articulate a higher ethical standard – one that insists we owe a duty of care to our children and grandchildren.

Read a response from Te Kāhui Whaihanga NZIA here.

Response from the NZRAB below:

Letter to the editor, from the NZRAB Chair, Gina Jones

Your July/August editorial suggests that the Code of Ethics of New Zealands’ architects ought to reference “sustainability”.

The importance of sustainability in the built environment is self-evident. However, I think you have been looking in the wrong place to see how the New Zealand Registered Architects Board/Te Poari Kaihoahoa Rēhita o Aotearoa responds to this.

The NZRAB has a Minimum Standard that all New Zealand architects must meet to be registered and to continue to be registered. This is where we articulate what is required of Registering Architects.

The Minimum Standard says: The applicant must be able to comprehend, and apply his or her knowledge of, accepted principles underpinning widely applied good practice for professional architecture; and good architectural practice for professional architecture in New Zealand. The NZRAB’s written guidance to applicants says this requires that the design concept and its development demonstrates an understanding of architectural history and building traditions and an understanding of relevant social, cultural and environmental issues, including issues of sustainability.

Applicants for registration can expect to be scrutinised on this.

The Minimum Standard is a living document and is about to be reviewed to ensure it aligns with current thinking in the profession, including an articulation of what’s required that we share with Australia, which was recently amended to include “sustainable practice”.

That said, if Architecture NZ believes that an even greater emphasis should be given to sustainability in terms of what the Minimum Standard expects of architects, that would be a valid subject for discussion – the profession as it defines itself is always adapting and evolving.

The Code of Ethics, however, is different. The professional associations that you cite – the New Zealand Institute of Architects and the UK Royal Institute of British Architects – quite rightly champion the profession’s aspirations. The NZRAB, however, is a regulatory board and the Code of Ethics lists a set of behaviours set down in regulations that are either mandatory or forbidden, so that architects that breach the code can be disciplined, and potentially named, fined, or even struck off.

Were the Code of Ethics to reference sustainability it would have to be in such a way that a breach could be a basis for disciplinary proceedings, which would be neither practical nor helpful to anyone. The Board supports an educative approach.

Gina Jones
Chair NZRAB

Response from Elrond Burrell, director at VIA Architecture Ltd