Reflective Tools and Good Practices to Reinforce Ethics, Responsibility and Sustainability in Engineering Education

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Le Duc, I., Daniel, S., Josa, I., Lan Hing Ting, K., Saad, R., Rossi, V., & Truslove, J. (2025). Reflective Tools and Good Practices to Reinforce Ethics, Responsibility and Sustainability in Engineering Education. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631299. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. REFLECTIVE TOOLS AND GOOD PRACTICES TO REINFORCE ETHICS, RESPONSIBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION Ingrid Le Duc a,1, Scott Daniel b, Irene Josa c, Karine Lan Hing Ting d, Valentina Rossi e, Rola Saad f a Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland, orcid.org/00000002-0816-6123 b University of Technology Sydney, orcid.org/0000-0002-7528-9713 c The Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London (UCL), d Secretariat General, European University of Technology, France, European Union, e Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland f School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Sheffield, orcid.org/0000-0002-3312-2106 Conference Key Areas: Dialogue between engineering and society – effects on education; Sustainability and society in engineering Keywords: Archimedean oath, charter, global responsibility, teaching scenarios, ethics in engineering education ABSTRACT In this paper, we review several reflective practices of oaths, charters and codes of conduct that support ethics and sustainability in engineering education in Europe and Australia. We find similar concerns to the importance of respecting ethical dilemmas and sustainability in engineering education. Different practices share global responsibility as a recurrent concern. This paper explores considerations about whether it is possible to transfer good practices in ethics and sustainability from engineering education into professional practice. 1 Corresponding Author I.Le Duc [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION Engineering, as a discipline, extends far beyond the realm of technical expertise; it is a profession that profoundly influences the fabric of society, sustainability, and the trajectory of human lives. Consequently, a robust ethical framework is not merely a desirable attribute but a fundamental necessity for ensuring that engineering endeavours are conducted responsibly and contribute positively to the global community. Traditionally, professional oaths and codes of conduct have served as formal and public articulations of the ethical principles and responsibilities that guide engineers in their professional practice. These documents act as cornerstones, reinforcing standards of conduct and promoting the prioritisation of public good in all engineering activities. The existence of formalised ethical commitments across a spectrum of professions, including law, medicine, and public service, shows a widespread recognition of the critical need for such frameworks in fields where trust and responsibility are paramount. Engineering, with its direct and often substantial impact on safety, infrastructure, and overall well-being, logically aligns with this need for a formal ethics guide (Harris et al., 2019). Beyond simply outlining expected behaviours, oaths and codes can cultivate a deeper sense of duty and integrity among professionals. This internal commitment can serve as a powerful and intrinsic motivator for ethical behaviour, extending beyond mere adherence to external regulations and guidelines. 1.1 Global responsibility in engineering Global responsibility is a term that has been gaining momentum in engineering, encompassing crucial areas such as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), sustainability and ethics (Truslove et al., 2021). Global responsibility is achieved by balancing the needs of all people within the limits of our planet. This goes beyond merely social responsibility, in that it requires critically reflecting on the role of engineering in society as well as considering its social, environmental and economic impacts both locally, where solutions are implemented, and globally, through supply chains and operations. The need for engineers to embrace global responsibility has long been recognised (Kamp, 2020), underscoring the need for critical reflection on the role of engineering in society and its effects on people’s well-being and ecological stability. Yet coverage of sustainability, inclusion and ethics across engineering degrees remains insubstantial and inconsistent. For example, a 2022 survey of 667 students revealed that only around 30% had so far encountered the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in their education (Siemens, 2023). Further, industry and professional bodies in recent years have stated that ‘engineering degrees are not fit for purpose’ (Flaig, 2022). In this paper we present a series of strategies to help engineering degrees align with current ethics and sustainability goals, starting with the Archimedean Oath. 1.2 The Archimedean Oath The Archimedean Oath was proposed in the 1990s by four physics students at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). Inspired by the ethical principles embodied in the Hippocratic Oath for medical professionals, it addresses fundamental ethical concerns across diverse scientific and technical domains. Its initial motivation emphasized the commitment of graduating engineers to both their academic institution and their broader global responsibilities. This dual focus recognized that engineers, upon graduation, transition into roles where their actions have implications that extend beyond their immediate professional circles. Recently, a growing awareness of evolving societal and environmental realities has prompted a re-evaluation and updating of the Archimedean Oath. The need to address contemporary challenges, not only in the specific wording but also in the broader scope of the oath, has become increasingly apparent. For example, the main student association recently revised the text to better align with current concerns ethical concerns such as climate change. This revision process highlights the ongoing engagement of students in shaping their learning experience. Its current text explicitly acknowledges the expanding responsibility of engineers, as scientists towards nature and humanity, alongside the ethical dilemmas that arise from the development and application of technology. This evolution signifies a commitment to ensuring that the ethical framework guiding engineers remains relevant and responsive to the pressing issues of our time. In light of the above, this article aims to explore alternative complementary approaches to the traditional use of the Archimedean Oath, such as the use of charters, case studies, and the EUt+ Alliance modular teaching. We are specifically examining how such approaches can function as reflective tools within engineering education. 2 PRACTICAL SCENARIOS 2.1 Global responsibility at all levels for educational change A prominent driver in advocating for global responsibility in engineering, the Engineers Without Borders UK movement strives to place ‘global responsibility at the heart of engineering’ for a safe and just future for all, by inspiring, upskilling and driving change within engineering education and practice, through its four guiding principles: responsible, purposeful, inclusive and regenerative. Navigating the complexities of educating the next generation is no easy feat. It often involves questioning ‘how’ and ‘why’ we teach, and how to engineer with deep consideration for the broader impacts of engineering on people and the planet. In this sense, Engineers Without Borders UK have navigated this landscape of change to engage stakeholders within this system to meaningfully integrate global responsibility into engineering education - working at the Module, Programme/Faculty and SystemWide levels (Truslove et al., 2025). This is in recognition that transformative change which addresses multiple levels of action is essential within complex systems such as higher education (Purcell and Haddock-Fraser, 2023). Crucially, there is no one-sizefits-all approach to making change, or the type of change that’s needed and/or relevant for different organisations. Effectively integrating global responsibility into engineering education requires multiple layers of change. Specifically for teaching scenarios, we enlist various pedagogical strategies. One such strategy involves exposing students to the professional codes and standards that govern the engineering profession. This familiarisation helps students understand the ethical guidelines and responsibilities they will be expected to uphold in their careers, fostering a sense of professional duty and ethical conduct. Another strategy that may be used is the utilisation of case studies that present realworld ethical dilemmas, prompting students to engage in discussions and apply ethical principles to complex scenarios, thereby enhancing their ethical reasoning and decision-making skills. Furthermore, educators can engage students with ethical heuristics and explore foundational principles of philosophical ethics to deepen their understanding of ethical theories and equip them with the tools for critical analysis. Incorporating discussions around Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) provides students with a framework for understanding the broader social and environmental impacts of engineering decisions within organisational contexts. Teaching ‘role ethics’, which focuses on the specific responsibilities associated with different professional roles, can also provide students with a more nuanced understanding of their duties and potential ethical challenges. Importantly, integrating ethical considerations not as a separate subject but alongside the core technical curriculum and within the context of engineering projects helps students recognize the inherent ethical dimensions of their technical work. In order for the ethical content being taught to be relevant and have meaning, it needs to relate to the engineering discipline. Section 3 of the Engineering Ethics Education Handbook (Chance et al., 2025), which emerged from the SEFI SIG on Ethics, presents the many ways that ethics is applied, considered, and practiced in the various subfields/disciplines of engineering. Whether termed ‘Engineering ethics’ or ‘Responsible engineering’, the principle is that engineers must be taught to take responsibility for the implications of their work. The combination of these diverse pedagogical strategies is crucial for fostering a comprehensive and enduring understanding of global responsibility in future engineers. 2.2 Establishing a Charter and classroom policies The previous sections emphasized the essential role for charters and codes of conduct to cultivate a deeper sense of duty and integrity among professionals during their engineering studies. The agreed commitment could become a powerful and intrinsic motivator for ethical behaviour to help translate regulations and guidelines into practice. This section briefly presents the work for establishing a charter. Here, we refer to a initiative aiming to establish a charter as a statement describing the place the subscribed participants aspire to work and study within; and which consequently serves as guidance to reflect on an academic community’s values. Lastly, a charter could inspire classroom policies for student projects and help build psychological safety in the classroom. We identified similarities across a variety of charters and codes of conduct in academic contexts. For example, in 2024 the University of Edinburgh published a behavioural charter to ‘support conversations around the importance of how we do our job, as well as what we have achieved’ (University of Edinburgh, 2024). Likewise, in 2023, the Department of Architecture at ETH-Zurich (D-ARCH) defines their newly established code of conduct as ‘a declaration of intent… a regulatory ideal and a learning tool that helps us assess problematic situations and guide our behaviour in case of confusion or doubt’ (page1: Preamble). Following this logic, the charter that would be produced by a small working group, would be submitted for wider consultation. The effort would then be put to consultation to ensure it is appropriated and seen as collective and representative of shared values. Interestingly, the ethical value of this exercise is twofold, having a document on one side, and the collaborative activities building to its final draft on the other. To note, at the time of submitting this paper we could only afford to share insights on this participative process as work is still ongoing. First, as proposed by Engineers Without Borders UK, as a pre-professional exercise, it is important to involve students to explore reasons for having charters or codes of conduct in addition to consulting the adequacy of its content. Charters and codes of conduct are commonplace for engineering associations and federations, as well as for Architects, such as the Architects Registration Board in the UK, or the International Federation of Structural Concrete. Thus, a discussion on a charter complies to the legal framework and institutional guidelines. Second, as a pedagogical exercise, establishing a charter teaches about overcoming challenges and dealing with frustration; two essential transversal skills that complement ethical decision-making. For instance, students develop skills facilitating conversations about values such as respect, academic integrity, application of theory, cooperation and time management. Ideally, the charter would apply at various layers of a hierarchy, for example; between supervisor and doctoral students. To end, a charter could inspire guidelines for establishing semester-long teamwork agreements, as is the case for design studios or hands-on projects. 2.3 Oaths, charters and codes of conduct as reflection tools A classroom strategy that could be used to engage students with the ethical codes mentioned above, be it the Archimedean Oath, a code of conduct, a charter or a case study; is a reflective session in which students review similar practices from other professions, identify some considerations they see as important for engineering to construct their version of it; to then finally compare with the Archimedean Oath and other ethical codes. This activity could certainly fit in any subject focused on engineering in society (Daniel, 2022). However, such content should be mainstreamed to not risk the possibility that students disregard or underweight it, where if it is not presented in a core engineering unit it is then misconstrued as not ‘real engineering’. Instead, such social and ethical dimensions of engineering should be made visible throughout the curriculum to ensure they are perceived as central to engineering and to offer a clear pathway throughout which students would develop expertise (Leydens & Lucena, 2018). A draft lesson plan is presented in the table below. Table 1. Lesson plan for reflection on oaths, codes of conduct and charters Section Time (min) Notes Introduction 10’ Introducing the medical Hippocratic oath - discussing it and what it might look like for engineering. Possible variations: Opportunity to also compare with Kurt Vonnegut’s extension of the Hippocratic oath - "The regimen I adopt shall be for the benefit of all life on this planet, according to my own ability and judgement, and not for its hurt or for any wrong. I will create no deadly substance or device, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such." Think-pair-share about any reflections on the Hippocratic Oath, comparison with Vonnegut’s Oath, or applications to engineering Discussion to unpack how medical practice as ideally conceptualized is more than filling out forms, prescribing medicine, keeping managers happy, etc. What is engineering ideally conceptualized as? Groupwork I 20’ Discussion prompt: What are the values, behaviors, attitudes that we would want to see (or not see) in early career professionals? Share in plenary (10+10 min.). This could be supported by offering students an inventory of different values, attitudes, etc., and having them pile sort or somehow prioritize them, and/or by having students collaborate on a shared document (e.g. a slide deck with one slide per group) to facilitate collaboration and share-back. Groupwork II 20’ Discussion prompt: How might we construct an oath to represent those values, behaviors, attitudes? Share in plenary (10+10 min). Possibly scaffolding with some sentence stems: “I promise to always x”, “I shall always prioritize abc over xyz”, etc. Example of an ethical code 10’ Introduce the Archimedean oath, its history and its text. Homework / Additional Discussion TBC With the draft oath that each student group came up with, students respond to the following prompts: How is it similar / different to the Archimedean oath? How is it similar/ different to the peak body (e.g. Engineers Australia) Code of Ethics? Can you synthesize these into an oath you would want to take at graduation? 2.4 Revisiting technological education within the EUt+ alliance The European University of Technology Alliance (EUt+) is currently supporting two essential objectives in education. First, the European Degree in Engineering: A proof of concept that provides a strategic direction in collaboration with external stakeholders (including accreditation agencies and industry partners) and based on the competency framework of the EUt+ Bachelor and Master of Engineering. Second, there is active sharing and developing of good practices in technological education, articulated around EUt+’s mission statement and summarized in the motto “European values empowering technology”. With its ‘cascade’ model, where projects incrementally build upon the experience and results of previous ones, the European Culture and Technology Lab - ECT Lab+ has five complementary projects that examine new ways of addressing ethics and ecology in technological education: EthiCo, AesthiCo, EpiCO, ELEVATE, and EPISTEAM The project EthiCo (2020 – 2023), has set up the baseline of an ethical framework from the work of contemporary philosophy. Confirming that the application of preexisting ethical frameworks has been reduced to the introduction of ethics onto the engineering degree programs, EthiCo developed specific methodologies of ethics and ecology, globally fostering a techno diverse approach within higher education (Perez et al., 2022). AesthiCo (2021 – 2025) focused on Aesthetics of Care, interpreting aesthetics as a process to generate responsible actions that are informed by sensory experience and entail care for ourselves, others and the planet. The project adopts a transdisciplinary approach for technological education to address the 21st century challenges. Care is encoded in the way we design, build, interact with, employ, or feel towards technology, so that future technologists have concrete ethical frameworks to work with. The project developed an aesthetico-ethical framework available to educators as a modular toolkit that can be deployed in a variety of pedagogical settings (Perez et al., 2025). Even more, interdisciplinary educational modules for students and teachers have intersected art, science, and sustainable technology following the model. Likewise, EpiCo’s (2023 - ongoing) holistic approach to technology education is twofold: it presents ecological challenges and uses the lenses of the impact of culture and society on technological design. EpiCo’s epistemic analysis of weaknesses and opportunities, presents a wide range of alternatives to foster sustainable skills and critical thinking for teachers, trainers, educators, and students in technological education. The three projects described above use a 3-day Intensive Study Programme (ISP) of activities to test preliminary results. Each project develops 2 ISPs: a Teacher Training Module and a Student Training Module. External teachers and students from the project are invited to participate, test, evaluate and co-create the results of each module. The idea is to eventually explore the five basic branches of philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, ethics and aesthetics) and to develop resources and training for educators and students which is accessible, useful, replicable, and sustainable. This training ultimately aims to promote critical thinking skills and competences to face the socio-techno-ecological challenges of the 21st century. A fourth project has been submitted (ELEVATE) in 2025, focusing on responsible innovation of digital technologies. In parallel, the EPISTEAM project (2023 – ongoing) explores the impact of digital technology in different disciplines, ranging from bio-engineering and urban planning to philosophy and arts. 3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This paper presented several contrasting scenarios where students and teachers reflect on related behaviour to ethics and sustainability in becoming engineers. The scenarios included: Think-Pair-Share, building their vision of an oath, participatory writing of classroom policies, a pedagogical toolkit with an aesthetic-ethical framework, and interdisciplinary educational modules to train students and educators. These scenarios are all designed to integrate ethics, global responsibility, and sustainability into engineering education, and highlight the value of moving beyond traditional methods—such as simply reciting an oath or reading ethical codes—to more active, reflective, and participatory practices. Through the engagement of students and educators in co-creating ethical frameworks, charters, and scenarios grounded in realistic professional dilemmas, engineering education programs could lead to a deeper ethical awareness and cultivate responsible professional identities. The diverse scenarios presented emphasise the significance of embedding ethical reflection within the engineering curriculum rather than treating it as peripheral content. They aim to encourage students to personally identify with professional ethics, bridging abstract ethical principles with concrete professional responsibilities. However, these reflective tools should be embedded systematically across the educational experience to ensure that ethics are perceived as integral to engineering, not supplementary. While the context of teaching and the demanding academic environment could represent an obstacle to applying an oath, a charter or a reflective in-class activity, it is important to note that these strategies have demonstrated proof-of-concept, having already been applied in different contexts by the authors. Ultimately, integrating the practices and reflections discussed throughout this paper into engineering education could have significant implications. Students should be better positioned to critically assess their motivations, develop an internalised commitment to social and environmental responsibility, and envision the impact their careers will have on society. Through deliberate, reflective, and interactive approaches, engineering education can more effectively prepare professionals who are not only technically proficient but ethically conscious, globally responsible, and committed to sustainability. 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS