Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

RIBA and ARB ethical codes attacked


Jeremy Till, Paul Morrell and David Roberts questioned the profession’s ethical guidance at a Bartlett event earlier this week

The RIBA and the ARB have defended themselves from accusations that their codes of practice are too weak to prevent ethical abuses.

Several speakers at an ethics symposium at the Bartlett held on Monday criticised the ethical codes adopted by the RIBA and ARB, claiming they lack teeth and are vague and un-enforced by the two organisations.

Head of Central Saint Martins Jeremy Till claimed the 12 point ARB Architects’ code ‘gets architects off the hook’.

He said most of the points had nothing to do with ethics but were instead about serving the client.

‘These are the ethics of the marketplace – simply about how one subscribes to the value system and phoney ethics of the marketplace and yet we are told by ARB that this is a source of ethical guidance,’ he said.

Architecture on Trial - ethical business

Bartlett PhD student David Roberts said: ‘RIBA’s code is almost as self-protecting as the ARB’s. It calls for honesty, integrity and competency, as well as concern for others and for the environment. However, the code of the Royal Town Planning Institute calls for members to ‘fearlessly and impartially exercise their independent professional judgement’, which is far stronger.’

He also cited the code adopted by the Institute for Civil Engineers, which calls on its members to ‘always be aware of their overriding responsibility to the public good’.  

‘All of these institutions go further than architecture bodies,’ said Roberts, ‘and move towards the idea collective consequences.’

Roberts said that the weaknesses in architecture’s ethical codes put more responsibility on architecture schools to inculcate ethics in students.

‘If ethics are inferred rather than enforced then consideration (of ethics) should extend to wider teaching environment,’ he said.

Also speaking at the Bartlett event, consultant Paul Morrell, the author of the recent Edge Commission report and former chief construction adviser to thegovernment, reiterated his criticism that architects are relying on ethical codes which are not enforced.

He said: ‘Codes of ethics are not enough on their own. Even FIFA has a code of ethics. It is easy to have one but if it is not enforce and not lived then it is not effective .’

However, Simon Howard, professional standards manager at the ARB rejected the idea that its code was weak.

He said: ‘ARB’s view is that the code of conduct is of vital importance for architects.

‘It makes clear to architects and the public the standards of conduct to be expected from member of the profession.’

However, he added that the ARB is considering whether the current version of its code remains fit for purpose. It launched a consultation in May, which is still running on its website.

‘Criticisms and suggestions are encouraged,’ Howard said.

RIBA president Stephen Hodder said: ‘RIBA has always placed significant value on ethics and the role of the profession in supporting public interest.

‘Ethics is a core focus for the Institute’s strategy for 2016-2020; and earlier this year we announced our co-founding of an International Ethics Standards Coalition.’

Hodder also noted that the RIBA has committed to develop more guidance for members in the area of social responsibility and ethical practice following the recommendations of an international task force report last year.

‘Whether to include changes to the code of conduct is part of our very active discussions on the matter,’ he said.

RIBA and ARB ethical codes attacked


Readers' comments (4)

  • The ARB Code of Conduct is not fit for purpose because it fails to put sufficient responsibility on architects to tackle environmental issues

    The 2002 Code put an explicit responsibility on architects to tackle environmental issues
    "Standard 5 2002 Code
    Whilst Architects' primary responsibility is to their clients, they should nevertheless have due regard to their wider responsibility to conserve and enhance the quality of the environment and its natural resources."

    This was watered down in the 2010 code following pressure from the RIBA and there Association of Consultant Architects.
    "Standard 5 2010 Code 5.1 Whilst your primary responsibility is to your clients, you should take into account the environmental impact of your professional activities."

    “Taking into account” environmental issues is far too weak
    The stronger 2002 statement should be reinstated and strengthened even further. ARB should establish a working party to advise the BOard on ethical and environmental issues before changing the code

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When one of the members of the ARB has all his architect partners listed as board members on his practice information you can be fairly sure that the organisation is in need of a little gentle kicking.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The real question is whether rules of any kind improve professionalism. The better remedy by anyone who has suffered at the hands of a professional person is to sue them.

    Why? Becasue all of the so-called regulators (apart from medical) suffer from the same shortcoming - the service they provide is under-funded and ineffective. Medical regulation is different - it has teeth becuase it can stop people practising. The rest are a waste of space and always will be.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ben Derbyshire

    I am keen to contribute on the subject of architects, ethics and the public interest not because I profess any moral superiority in this area, or any depth of understanding of the philosophical issues that underlie it. Far from it. But I believe the questions raised by recent debates in the pages of the AJ; on issues such as airport construction, fairness in procurement processes, working conditions for middle eastern construction workers, development in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the provision of affordable housing in London reveal that considerable confusion reigns about these issues.

    Ideally, the AJ would engage in a proactive and collaborative debate that is also going on elsewhere right now, notably at the RIBA and at The Edge, the object of which would be to clarify these issues for the mutual benefit of architects, our clients and society at large.

    The Edge Commission Report: Collaboration for Change, May 2015 by Paul Morrell includes in its first three chapters, 'The case for the professions', Pressures for change' and Ethics and the public interest' and taken together, these are an incredibly helpful primer for anyone participating in this discussion.

    At the RIBA, recent papers to its council recognise the requirement for 'redefining the covenant between the profession and society (and that a) successful future profession will need to define, share and communicate clear and transparent ethics appropriate to a changing world. There has undoubtedly been some loss of faith in the professions in general - professionals no longer benefit from an assumed power and authority.'

    Of course, there are inevitable questions of definition and clarification that precede any useful discussion. And setting the parameters of the discussion begins to sound like a Michael Buerk trailer for the BBC Radio 4 Moral Maze programme: How do you define the public interest? Is it against the public interest to attempt to do so or would this simply lead to inevitable unintended consequences? To what extent can different political viewpoints be accommodated within the same ethical code? Is it relevant or right to attempt to impose behaviours based on an ethical position in circumstances that are beyond the political or practical reach of the institutions concerned? What do you do when your principles point one way and a client's needs or wants point another? Has any member of a professional institution ever been sanctioned for failing to put the public interest above their own needs or those of their clients? And so on.

    In my role as an RIBA councillor I have noted that the confusion existing in this area is not helped by the by the overlapping roles of ARB and RIBA. One or other should have the role of setting, monitoring and policing a code of conduct, not both, and not differently! I believe that the RIBA's purpose is to advance a diverse Architecture and profession of all kinds and callings - provided practice follows an overarching code. Particular issues requiring clarification are our duty to the environment, to act with probity (especially in foreign markets) and not to infringe human rights in the way we deliver services. I have urged that The Edge Commission recommendations on ethics and the public interest should be followed, namely to:
    a) Develop and standardise a national code of conduct/ethics across the built environment professions, building on shared experience in the UK and internationally.
    b) Make public and clear the procedures for complaint and the institution’s sanctioning process, details of members who have been sanctioned, and the grounds for doing so.
    I believe RIBA council should welcome the Edge Commission Report, acknowledging that inter-professional collaboration is essential to secure the future of professionalism generally in the built environment. The RIBA should accordingly fully accept the these final recommendations in a spirit of collaboration, and commit to working with The Edge and the key leading professional institutions on appropriate joint action. Architects need to offer more than simply professional propriety masquerading as an ethical position, which, to quote professor Jeremy Till 'even my hairdresser could meet'. Future requirements might include:
    1) Engagement with the public in their work - both on project and to communicate benefits and value in lay terms.
    2) Integration with the means of production - design that starts with an understanding of construction process.
    3) Commitment to measurable building performance - both prediction and post occupancy evaluation.
    4) Involvement in education - recognising life-long learning and the dearth of 'learn as you earn' opportunities.
    5) Sustainability - an obligation to point out the relative costs and benefits of appropriate measures to clients.
    6) Collaborative research - working with others and communicating new ways of practice and means of production.
    7) A declaration of high level principles - recognising the diversity of roles, forms of practice and political affiliations that legitimately exist within any ethical framework.

    At HTA we are at least beginning an attempt at all of these and I believe it would become immeasurably easier to do so if such aspirations were to become the cross-industry norm.

    In particular, we do not demur from engaging in those parts of the development industry which do not turn in the first instance to architects for the design of their product because we believe in the long term of objective of learning how our knowledge and skills can add value to their business. The profession must diversify, or die.

    By the same token, we believe it is appropriate and right to attempt to do so, notwithstanding that we may not agree, or may not be entirely comfortable, with all of the conditions that apply. These might be standards that we believe to be unnecessary, policies that we have not voted for, processes that we think are inappropriate, materials or specifications that we think could be improved. The point is that it is important to be there and attempting to add value by design, acknowledging we may not always succeed and learning from our mistakes.

    We do turn away commissions that we believe are in irrevocable conflict, of course. But, for the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm that projects promoted by democratically elected councils, delivered by major housing charities and/or listed developers are not generally among them.

    Ben Derbyshire
    Managing Partner HTA Design LLP
    Chair, The Housing Forum.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

AJ Jobs