UNIT – V

Scope and aims of engineering ethics (NSPE Code of Ethics), Responsibility of Engineers,

Impediments to responsibility. Honesty, Integrity and reliability, Risks, Safety and Liability

in Engineering. Corporate Social Responsibility. Statutory Provision regarding prohibition

and prevention of Ragging.

Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers

are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct
and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by
engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness and equity, and must be dedicated to the
protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard
of professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
I. Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the
honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
II. Rules of Practice
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
a. If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property,
they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with
applicable standards.
c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information without the prior consent of the
client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.
d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with
any person or firm that they believe are engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise.
e. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon
to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and
cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as
may be required.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.
a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience
in the specific technical fields involved.
b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject
matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under
their direction and control.
c. Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of an
entire project and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire project,
provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified
engineers who prepared the segment.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony.
They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or
testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the
facts and competence in the subject matter.
c. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters that are
inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by
explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by
revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters.
4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or
appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
b. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party
for services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless the
circumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties.
c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or
indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible.
d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a governmental or quasi-
governmental body or department shall not participate in decisions with respect to services
solicited or provided by them or their organizations in private or public engineering
practice.
e. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental body on which a
principal or officer of their organization serves as a member.
5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.
a. Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their
associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in
or for the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to
the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers,
employees, associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.
b. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit or receive, either directly or indirectly, any
contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be
reasonably construed by the public as having the effect of intent to influencing the awarding
of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure
work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure
work, except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing
agencies retained by them.
III. Professional Obligations
1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and
integrity.
a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.
b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be
successful.
c. Engineers shall not accept outside employment to the detriment of their regular work or
interest. Before accepting any outside engineering employment they will notify their
employers.
d. Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from another employer by false or
misleading pretenses.
e. Engineers shall not actively participate in strikes, picket lines, or other collective coercive
action.
f. Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of
the profession.
2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.
a. Engineers shall seek opportunities to participate in civic affairs; career guidance for youths;
and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their community.
b. Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in
conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such
unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further
service on the project.
c. Engineers shall endeavor to extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and
its achievements.
3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public.
a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact
or omitting a material fact.
b. Consistent with the foregoing, Engineers may advertise for recruitment of personnel.
c. Consistent with the foregoing, Engineers may prepare articles for the lay or technical press,
but such articles shall not imply credit to the author for work performed by others.
4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the
business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public
body on which they serve.
a. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, promote or arrange for
new employment or practice in connection with a specific project for which the Engineer
has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
b. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, participate in or represent
an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the
Engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or
employer.
5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests.
a. Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, including free engineering
designs, from material or equipment suppliers for specifying their product.
b. Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances, directly or indirectly, from
contractors or other parties dealing with clients or employers of the Engineer in connection
with work for which the Engineer is responsible.
6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional
engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or
questionable methods.
a. Engineers shall not request, propose, or accept a commission on a contingent basis under
circumstances in which their judgment may be compromised.
b. Engineers in salaried positions shall accept part-time engineering work only to the extent
consistent with policies of the employer and in accordance with ethical considerations.
c. Engineers shall not, without consent, use equipment, supplies, laboratory, or office
facilities of an employer to carry on outside private practice.
7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the
professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers
who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information
to the proper authority for action.
a. Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same
client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such
engineer with the work has been terminated.
b. Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational employ are entitled to review and
evaluate the work of other engineers when so required by their employment duties.
c. Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to make engineering comparisons of
represented products with products of other suppliers.
8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, provided,
however, that Engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out of their practice
for other than gross negligence, where the Engineer's interests cannot otherwise be
protected.
a. a. Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.
b. b. Engineers shall not use association with a nonengineer, a corporation, or partnership as
a "cloak" for unethical acts.
9. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will
recognize the proprietary interests of others.
a. Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons who may be individually
responsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.
b. Engineers using designs supplied by a client recognize that the designs remain the property
of the client and may not be duplicated by the Engineer for others without express
permission.
c. Engineers, before undertaking work for others in connection with which the Engineer may
make improvements, plans, designs, inventions, or other records that may justify copyrights
or patents, should enter into a positive agreement regarding ownership.
d. Engineers' designs, data, records, and notes referring exclusively to an employer's work are
the employer's property. Employer should indemnify the Engineer for use of the
information for any purpose other than the original purpose.
Responsibility in Engineering .The concept of responsibility is many-faceted. As a notion of
accountability, it may be applied to individual engineers, teams of engineers, divisions or units
within organizations, or even organizations themselves. It may focus primarily on legal
liabilities, job-defined roles, or moral accountability. Our focus in this chapter is mainly on the
moral accountability of individual engineers.
“Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers
are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct
and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, t services provided by
engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the
protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard
of professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.”
From National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE)
Engineering Standards
engineering codes of ethics require that the work of engineers conform with „„applicable
engineering standards.‟‟ These may be regulatory standards that specify technical
requirements for specific kinds of engineering design—for example, that certain standards of
safety be met by bridges or buildings. As such, they focus primarily on the results of
engineering practice—on whether the work satisfies certain standards of quality or safety.
Engineering standards may also require that certain procedures be undertaken to ascertain that
specific, measurable levels of quality or safety are met, or they may require that whatever
procedures are used be documented, along with their results.
Types of Responsibility:
Obligation responsibility
It is a positive‟‟ and forward-looking conception of responsibility. Obligation-responsibility
sometimes refers to a person who occupies a position or role of supervision. We sometimes say
that an engineer is in „„responsible charge‟‟ of a design or some other engineering project. A
person in responsible charge has an obligation to see to it that the engineering project is
performed in accordance with professional standards, both technical and ethical.
Blame responsibility
It is a fundamentally “negative” and backward-looking concept of responsibility.
Unfortunately, we have a tendency to focus on the blaming end of this evaluative spectrum.
We seem more readily to notice shortcomings and failures than the everyday competent, if not
exceptional, performance of engineers. (We expect our cars to start, the elevators and trains to
run, and the traffic lights to work.) In any case, we speak of an engineer as „„being
responsible‟‟ for a mistake or as being one of those „„responsible‟‟ for an accident.
THE STANDARD OF CARE
Engineers have a professional obligation to conform to the standard operating procedures and
regulations that apply to their profession and to fulfill the basic responsibilities of their job as
defined by the terms of their employment. Sometimes, however, it is not enough to follow
standard operating procedures and regulations. Unexpected problems can arise that standard
operating procedures and current regulations are not well equipped to handle. In light of this,
engineers are expected to satisfy a more demanding norm, the standard of care. An engineer is
not liable, or responsible, for damages for every error. Society has decided, through case law,
that when you hire an engineer, you buy the engineer’s normal errors. However, if the error is
shown to have been worse than a certain level of error, the engineer is liable. That level, the
line between non-negligent and negligent error, is the „„standard of care. ‟A good working
definition of the standard of care of a professional is: that level or quality of service ordinarily
provided by other normally competent practitioners of good standing in that field,
contemporaneously providing similar services in the same locality and UNDER same
circumstances.
Case example
Those in charge of the construction of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency hotel were charged with
professional negligence in regard to the catastrophic walkway collapse in 1981. Although those
in charge did not authorize the fatal departure from the original design of the walkway support,
it was determined that responsible monitoring on their part would have made them aware of
the proposed change. Had it come to their attention, a few simple calculations could have made
it evident to them that the resulting structure would be unsafe.In this case, it was determined
that the engineers in charge fell seriously short of accepted engineering practice, resulting in a
failure to meet the standard of care. Satisfying the standard of care cannot guarantee that failure
will not occur. However, failure to satisfy the standard of care itself is not acceptable. In any
particular case, there may be several acceptable ways of meeting the standard. Much depends
on the kind of project in question, its specific context, and the particular variables that
(sometimes unpredictably) come into play.
BLAME-RESPONSIBILITY AND CAUSATION
Now let us turn to the negative concept of responsibility for harm. We can begin by considering
The relationship of responsibility for harm to the causation of harm.There are three types of
explanations of an accident: the physical cause, organizational causes,and individuals
responsible or accountable for the accident.
The concept of cause is related in an interesting way to that of responsibility.
Corporations can be morally responsible agents:
First, corporations, like people, have a decision-making mechanism.
Second, corporations, like people, have policies that guide their decision making.
18HS71 - Constitution of India and Professional Ethics
Dept. of Industrial Engineering and Management
Third, corporations, like people, can be said to have „„interests‟‟ that are not necessarily the
same as those of the executives, employees, and others who make up the corporation.
LIABILITY
Concepts of liability and moral responsibility for harm:
First, a person can intentionally or knowingly and deliberately cause harm.
Second, a person can recklessly cause harm by not aiming to cause harm but by being aware
that harm is likely to result.
Third, a still weaker kind of legal liability and moral responsibility is usually associated with
negligently causing harm.
DESIGN STANDARDS
Q: If there is more than one way to satisfy safety standards, how are designers to proceed?
For a profession, the establishment of standards of practice is typically regarded as contributing
to professionalism, thereby enhancing the profession in the eyes of those who receive its
services. At the same time, standards of practice can contribute to both the quality and the
safety of products in industry. However, standards of practice have to be applied in particular
contexts that are not themselves specified in the standards.Standards of practice allow
engineers freedom to adapt their designs to local, variable circumstances.As engineers develop
innovative designs, we should expect formal standards of practice sometimes to be challenged
and found to be in need of change.
THE RANGE OF STANDARDS OF PRACTICE
Some standards of practice are clearly only local in their scope. However, there is good reason
to believe that professional standards of engineering practice can cross national boundaries. As
technological developments and their resulting products show up across the globe, they can be
expected to be accompanied by global concerns about quality, safety, efficiency, cost-
effectiveness, and sustainability. This, in turn, can result in uniform standards in many areas
regarding acceptable and unacceptable engineering design, practice, and products.
THE PROBLEM OF MANY HANDS
Individuals often attempt to evade personal responsibility for wrongdoing. Perhaps the most
common way this is done, especially by individuals in large organizations, is by pointing out
that many individuals had a hand in causing the harm.
The argument goes as follows:
„„So many people are responsible for the tragedy that it is irrational and unfair to pin the
responsibility on any individual person, including me.‟‟ It is called the problem of fractured
responsibility or (preferably) the problem of many hands.
Principle of responsibility for inaction in groups:In a situation in which harm has been
produced by collective inaction, the degree of responsibility of each member of the group
depends on the extent to which the member could reasonably be expected to have tried to
prevent the action.
IMPEDIMENTS TO RESPONSIBLE ACTION
What attitudes and frames of mind can contribute to less than fully responsible action, whether
it be intentional, reckless, or merely negligent? In this section, we discuss some impediments
to responsible action.
Self-Interest
Engineers are not simply engineers. They are, like everyone else, people with personal hopes
and ambitions that are not restricted to professional ideals. Taken to an extreme, concern for
self-interest is a form of egoism—an exclusive concern to satisfy one‟s own interests, even at
the possible expense of others.
Self-Deception
One way to resist the temptations of self-interest is to confront ourselves honestly and ask if
we would approve of others treating us in the same way we are contemplating treating them.
(„„I‟m not really doing this just for myself.‟ „„Everyone takes shortcuts once in a while—it‟s
the only way one can survive.‟‟)
This is called self-deception, an intentional avoidance of truths we would find it painful to
confront self-consciously.
Fear
We may be moved by various kinds of fear—fear of acknowledging our mistakes, of losing
our jobs, or of some sort of punishment or other bad consequences. Fears of these sorts can
make it difficult for us to act responsibly. It is also well known that whistleblowers commonly
endure considerable hardship and suffering as a result of their open opposition. This may
involve being shunned by colleagues and others, demotion or the loss of one‟s job, or serious
difficulties in finding new employment (especially in one‟s profession).
Ignorance
An obvious barrier to responsible action is ignorance of vital information. If an engineer does
not realize that a design poses a safety problem, for example, then he or she will not be in a
position to do anything about it. A major conclusion of an investigation report on NASA‟s
shuttle Columbia disaster said: “there was a kind of „„cultural fence‟‟ between engineers and
managers. This resulted in high-level managerial decisions that were based on insufficient
knowledge of the facts.”
Egocentric Tendencies
A common feature of human experience is that we tend to interpret situations from very limited
perspectives and it takes special efforts to acquire a more objective viewpoint. This is what
psychologists call egocentricity. It is actually a special form of ignorance.
Microscopic Vision
Like egocentric thinking, microscopic vision embraces a limited perspective. However,
whereas egocentric thinking tends to be inaccurate (failing to understand the perspectives of
others), microscopic vision may be highly accurate and precise but our field of vision is greatly
limited.Engineers sometimes need to raise their eyes from their world of scientific and technical
expertise and look around them in order to understand the larger implications of what they are
doing.
Groupthink
A noteworthy feature of the organizational settings within which engineers work is that
individuals tend to work and deliberate in groups. This means that an engineer will often
participate in group decision making rather than function as an individual decision maker.
Although this may contribute to better decisions („„two heads are better than one‟‟), it also
creates well-known but commonly overlooked tendencies to engage in groupthink situations in
which groups come to agreement at the expense of critical thinking. Traditionally, engineers
have prided themselves on being good team players, which compounds the potential difficulties
with groupthink. How can the problem of groupthink be minimized for engineers? Much
depends on the attitudes of group leaders, whether they are managers or engineers (orboth). It
is suggested that leaders need to be aware of the tendency of groups toward groupthink and
take constructive steps to resist it.
Risk & Liability in Engineering
The concern for safety is a common one for engineers. In the Twin Towers case, the risk was
increased by the earlier weakening of building codes and the use of new structural designs.
This illustrates an important fact that is "Engineering necessarily involves risks, and innovation
usually increases the risk. Without innovation, there will be no progress. The relationship of
safety to risk is an inverse one. Because of the laws of engineering science and statistics, the
more we accept the risk in an engineering project, the less safe it will become. One of the most
common concepts in engineering practice is the notion of "factor of safety". For example, if
the largest load a walkway will have to carry at any one time is 1000 pounds, then a prudent
engineer might design the walkway geometry to carry 3000 pounds. This chapter discusses
three different approaches to risk and safety:
1.Risk as the product of the probability and magnitude of harm.
To asses a risk, an engineer must first identify it. To identify a risk, an engineer must first know
what a risk is. The usual definition of engineering risk is a "compound measure of the
probability and magnitude of adverse effect". Risk has two elements:
a. The likelihood of an adverse effect or harm
b. The magnitude of that effect or harm. Harm can be defined as an invasion or limitation of a
person's freedom or wellbeing. Engineers have traditionally thought of harms in terms of things
that can be relatively easily quantified. These harms are them measured in terms of the number
of lives lost, the cost of rebuilding or repairing buildings and highways and so forth.
2.Utilitarianism & acceptable risks. The engineering conception of risk focuses on the factual
issues of the probability & magnitude of harm and contains no implicit evaluation of whether
a risk is morally acceptable. The risk expert’s criterion of acceptable risk is in the following
way:
“An acceptable risk is one in which the product of the probability and magnitude of the harm
is equaled or exceeded by the product of the probability and magnitude of the benefit, and there
is no other option where the product of the probability and magnitude of the benefit is
substantially greater”.

One way of implementing this account of acceptable risk is by means of an adaption of cost‐

benefit analysis, or risk‐benefit analysis. Despite the following limitations of cost‐benefit

analysis, this method has legitimate place in risk evaluation: It may not possible to anticipate
all of the effect associated with each option which may lead to unreliable results. it is not always
easy to translate all of the risks and benefits into monetary terms, so the method is incomplete

Cost‐benefit analysis makes no allowance for the distribution of costs and benefits.

The cost –benefit analysis gives no place for informed consent to the risks imposed by
technology.
3.Expanding the engineering account of risk: the capabilities approach to identify harm&
benefit.
The Capabilities Approach to Identifying Harm and Benefit, the “capabilities” approach
attempts to make the calculations of harms (economic losses and loss of life) more sophisticated
by developing a more adequate way of measuring the harms and benefits from disasters to

overall well‐being, which it defines in terms of the capabilities of people to live the kind of life

they value. A risk is acceptable if the probability is sufficiently small that the adverse effect of
a hazard will fall below a threshold (limit) of the minimum level of capabilities attainment
(achievement) that is acceptable in principle. Communicating Risk & Public Policy:
Communicating Risk to the Public (What is risk?) –Engineers (representing the Govt. &
Entrepreneurship) understand risk as the product of the magnitude & likelihood of harm & are
sympathetic with the utilitarian way of assessing acceptable risk i.e. using the cost benefit
approach to determine acceptable risk for engineering works.
–The lay public however determines risk in terms of simple factual issues, previous incidents,
& combined judgments of likelihood & acceptability of risks. –Social Policy should take a
wider perspective of risk than what the risk expert approach would indicate because: •Public
& Govt. will introduce their own agendas into the public debate about Tech risks & engineers
will be forced to adjust to these facts because they are morally legitimate considerations.
–Guidelines for engineers in Risk Communication
•Engineers should adopt a critical attitude toward the assessment of risks by considering the
audience’s perspective
1.Clearly differentiate between risk (magnitude + likelihood of harm) & risky (the probability
of harm)
2.Engineers should be wary of saying “There is no such thing as zero risk” to correct the
public’s understanding of ‘zero risk’ as it means that the risks are familiar rather than
improbable.
3.Acknowledge the possible limitations of their position to predict risks & outcomes.

4.Take into consideration both cost‐benefit approach as well as the special obligations of the

Govt. Regulators.
5.Professional Societies should present info regarding tech risks in an objective manner
especially in controversial areas (eg. Nuclear Power).
•Difficulties in Determining the Causes & Likelihood of Harm:
The Critical Attitude –Everybody demands accuracy in estimates of harm but what engineers
describe as approximate may not be as good as accurate. –Experts & Engineers may or may
not be able to estimate the magnitude & probability of harm up to the accuracy expectations. –
A failure mode is a way in which a structure or mechanism fails.
•Fault Tree Analysis Approach –Begin with an undesirable event & trace back the event that
caused the undesirable event. –It allows prediction of the various failure modes (way in which
a structure or mechanism fails) attendant to the project in question.
•Event Tree Analysis-Event Tree Analysis is one of the most widely used methods in system
risk analysis. It is an inductive failure analysis performed to determine the consequences of a
single failure for the overall system risk or reliability. Event Tree Analysis uses similar logic
and mathematics as Fault Tree Analysis, but the approach is different - FTA uses a deductive
approach (from a system failure to its causes), while ETA uses an inductive approach (from a
basic failure to its consequences). An event tree itself is a visual representation of single failure
sequences, together with a single failure impact on other events and on the whole system.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Augmenting profits is no longer the sole business performance indicator for the corporates and
they have to play the role of responsible corporate citizens by undertaking activities for
betterment of the society and the environment under the umbrella of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR).Organizations use resources that belongs to the society and it is expected
that they should operate in a sustainable manner and spend some amounts for preservation and
sustainability of resources which belong to the society. Over the last two decades, significant
economic growth and integration has taken place in the global economy, resulting in several
changes in the way businesses operate. Governments across the world have been using different
forms of regulations to improve corporate behavior so as to promote increased accountability,
disclosures and transparency from them. Gone are the days when Milton Friedman, the reputed
Economics Nobel laureate, opined in 1960s that companies have no responsibility towards the
society and that their objective was primarily the enhancement of shareholders’ wealth. With
the enactment of the Companies Act, 2013, CSR became a norm in India.
India is perhaps one of the few countries in the world where CSR is mandated under the Statute.
Since this is undoubtedly a unique provision of law, it has given rise to many concerns amongst
the stakeholders during the initial period of implementation. A High Level Committee was
constituted by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) in 2015 (“HLC-2015”) under the
Chairmanship of Shri Anil Baijal to suggest measures for monitoring and to help the
Government to strengthen the CSR framework. The HLC-2015 was of the view that the first
couple of years, would be a ‘learning experience’ for all stakeholders including the
Government, companies, implementing agencies, auditors, etc. after which an in-depth analysis
may be done based on disclosures from the filings made by the companies with respect to CSR
provisions. HLC-2015 recommended that another Committee be set up after three years to
revisit the CSR framework.
Concept of CSR
CSR emerges from different sociological settings of each era to influence the way businesses
adopt a more considerate and responsible behavior. Earlier businesses used to conduct these
activities through especially dedicated charities. Later on the concept developed to welfare
programs and activities in the nature of social responsibility. The concept of CSR has evolved
during the last few decades from simple philanthropic activities to integrating the interest of
the business with that of the community which is being served by such business. By exhibiting
socially, environmentally and ethically responsible behaviour in governance of its operations,
business can generate value and long term sustainability for itself while making positive
contribution towards the betterment of the society.
CSR is a concept whereby companies not only to consider their profitability and growth, but
also interests of society and the environment by taking responsibility for the impact of their
activities on the society, environment and communities in which they operate. CSR aims to
fulfill expectations that society has from business and it is viewed as a comprehensive set of
social policies, practices and programs that are integrated throughout the business operations.
The concept of CSR has evolved over the years and it is now used as a strategy and a business
opportunity to earn stakeholders’ goodwill.
CSR – The Indian Scenario
The philosophy of giving back to the society has been an integral part of the Indian culture and
ethos, which has also been imbibed in traditional Indian businesses since time immemorial.
The principle of doing good to society is enshrined in our holy scriptures. India’s ancient
wisdom, which is still relevant today, inspires people to work for the larger objective of the
well-being of all stakeholders. Indian business has traditionally been socially responsible and
some of the business houses have demonstrated their efforts on this front in a laudable manner.
Even today the foresight of Kautilya and his remarks in Arthashastra that “birds flock to a tree
which yields fruits” is the ethos which reverberates across the organisations. However, the
culture of social responsibility needs to go deeper in the governance of all business entities. In
order to integrate CSR into the core business philosophy, the Government of India has
mandated companies, those meeting certain thresholds in terms of turnover, net worth or net
profit to set apart at least 2% of their average previous three years net profit for CSR activities.
Broadly, this mandate has been aligned with national priorities such as public health, education,
food, water conservation, natural resource management, etc.
Corporate Social Responsibility (also known as Corporate Citizenship) means the
responsibility taken by the companies or the corporates towards the betterment of society as a
whole. Companies undertake these activities for upgradation in the lives of the people.
A large number of activities are undertaken by the companies under the umbrella of CSR. Few
of these activities are:
 To promote education in society.
 To organize programs designed to enhance the vocational skills among people.
 To promote health care and sanitation.
 To organize seminars and programs in order to educate people about the environment and
sustainable development.
 Setting up of orphanages, old age homes and daycare centres.
 Promote training for sports
 To contribute during the times of natural calamities like earthquakes, droughts and floods.
 To promote programmes and schemes for poverty alleviation, eradication of hunger,
providing safe drinking water, health care measures, rural development programs.
 To promote infrastructure development for building schools, hospitals, sports training
complexes, etc.
 As per section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, every Company, including its holding or
subsidiary whose :
 "Net worth is Rs 500 crore or more" OR
 "Is having a turnover of Rs 1000 crore or more" OR
 "Whose Net Profit is Rs 5 crore or more",
 during the immediately preceding financial year, have to contribute towards CSR activities
mandatorily.
CSR Committee: As per the CSR Rules, each and every Company on which CSR provisions
are applicable needs to form a CSR committee of the Board which,
 Shall constitute 3 or more Directors, out of which at least one of the Directors shall be an
Independent Director.
 In case of a foreign company at least two persons should be there in the committee of which
one person shall be an authorized person, resident in India and the second one should be
nominated by the Company itself.
 In the case of Private Company having only two directors, the committee shall also be
constituted having 2 Directors.
Roles Played By the CSR Committee:
 To plan and approve CSR strategies.
 To allocate the budget for CSR activities.
 To access the performance of the CSR policy of the Company.
 Monitor the implementation of CSR projects in a more transparent manner and a better
way.
 To ensure that at least 2% of the average profits of the Company, made during the
three immediately preceding financial years are spent in CSR Activities, in every
financial year.
The CSR Rules also states that the Board of Directors of the Company shall disclose the
contents of the CSR policy in its report, and it shall also be displayed on the website of the
Company.
Recent Key Reports on CSR:
1. Rupees 10,000 Crore was spent by the Listed companies in India in various sectors like
education programs, skill development, social welfare, environment, etc.
2. There was an increase of around 139% in CSR contribution towards Prime Minister's Relief
Fund over the last one year.
3. The maximum funding of around 38% is received by the education sector, followed by
healthcare sector 25%, environment sector 12%, rural development 11%.
Examples of CSR in India:
 The Tata Group in India has undertaken various CSR projects for community
improvement, poverty alleviation, agriculture programs, women's empowerment, income
generation, rural community development, AIDS awareness programs, infrastructure
development of schools, sports training centres, hospitals, research centres, etc. They also
provide different kinds of scholarships in the field of education.
 UltraTech Cement Group is involved in social work in around 407 villages in the country,
aiming to create self-reliance and sustainability. Their CSR activities focus on the
healthcare sector. They organize medical camps, immunization programs, sanitization
programs. They are also involved in water conservation drives, plantation drives, organic
farming programs. One of their major areas of focus is education and school enrollment.
Other major areas of focus are infrastructure, social welfare, environment protection,
sustainable livelihood.
 ITC Group has been focusing on creating sustainable livelihoods and environmental
protection programmes. The Company has been able to generate sustainable
livelihood opportunities for 6 million people through its CSR activities. Their e-
Choupal programme aims to connect rural farmers through the internet and covers 40,000
villages and over four million farmers. It's social, and farm forestry programme helps
farmers convert the farm wasteland into pulpwood plantation. Social empowerment
programs through loans have created a sustainable livelihood for over 40,000 rural women.
 Mahindra and Mahindra primarily focus on education programs to assist socially and
economically disadvantaged communities. They invest in scholarships and grants,
livelihood training, healthcare for remote areas, water conservation and disaster relief
programs. They run programs like Nanhi Kali focussing on education for
girls, Mahindra Pride Schools for livelihood training, and Lifeline Express for
healthcare services.
 Starbucks Starbucks (SBUX) has long been known for its keen sense of corporate social
responsibility and commitment to sustainability and community welfare. In its 2022
Environmental and Social Impact Report, the coffee giant highlights taking care of its
workforce and the planet among its CSR priorities. Starbucks points to its investments in
its employees through stock grants and providing additional medical, family, and
educational benefits. In terms of environmental sustainability, the company's goals include
achieving 50% reductions in greenhouse gas emission, water consumption, and waste by
2030.7
Home Depot
As part of its annual reporting on ESG, Home Depot (HD) highlighted its achievements in
focusing on its employees, operating sustainably, and strengthening its communities. The
company has invested more than 1 million hours per year in training to help front-line
employees advance in their careers, aims to produce or procure 100% renewable energy to
operate its facilities by 2030, and has plans to spend $5 billion per year with diverse suppliers
by 2025.

General Motors
General Motors won the Sustainability Leadership Award from Business Intelligence Group in
2022 and was among Diversity Inc.'s top 50 companies for diversity for a seventh consecutive
year in 2021. According to its latest Sustainability Report, the automaker provided $60 million
in grants to more than 400 U.S. nonprofits focusing on social issues, and it has agreements in
place to use 100% renewable electricity at its U.S. sites by 2025.9
ISO: 26000
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) issued ISO 26000 in 2010. It is the
international standard developed as a guidance system (not mandatory
rules/certification) specially designed and developed in order to help the organizations in
effectively assessing and addressing those social responsibilities that are significant and
relevant to their mission and vision, customers, employees and other stakeholders. The seven
key underlying principles of social responsibility as per ISO 26000 are:
1. Accountability
2. Transparency
3. Ethical behaviour
4. Respect for stakeholder interests
5. Respect for the rule of law
6. Respect for international norms of behaviour
7. Respect for human rights
Imp Note: The whole concept of CSR is the "welfare of everyone". In this contrast,
Stakeholders consists of every party affected by the Company or affecting the Company in a
direct or indirect manner. These key stakeholders include Suppliers, Investors, Employees and
unions, Customers, Directors, Government and its agencies, Society from which the business
draws its resources.
Benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility
As important as CSR is for the community, it is equally valuable for a company. CSR activities
can help forge a stronger bond between employees and corporations, boost morale, and aid
both employees and employers in feeling more connected to the world around them. Aside
from the positive impacts to the planet, here are some additional reasons businesses pursue
corporate social responsibility.
Brand Recognition
According to a study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, consumers are more
likely to act favorably toward a company that has acted to benefit its customers as opposed to
companies that have demonstrated an ability to delivery quality products.3 Customers are
increasingly becoming more aware of the impacts companies can have on their community,
and many now base purchasing decisions on the CSR aspect of a business. As a company
engages more in CSR, it is more likely to receive favorable brand recognition.
Investor Relations
In a study by Boston Consulting Group, companies that are considered leaders in
environmental, social, or governance matters had an 11% valuation premium over their
competitors.4 For companies looking to get an edge and outperform the market, enacting CSR
strategies tends to improve how investors feel about an organization and how they view the
worth of the company.
Employee Engagement
Another study by professionals from Texas A&M, Temple, and the University of Minnesota
found that CSR-related aligning firms and employees serve as non-financial job benefits that
strengthen employee retention.5 Workers are more likely to stick around a company that they
believe in. This in turn reduces employee turnover, disgruntled workers, and the total cost of a
new employee.
Risk Mitigation
By adhering to CSR practices, companies can mitigate risk by avoiding troubling situations.
This includes preventing adverse activities such as discrimination against employee groups,
disregard for natural resources, or unethical use of company funds. This type of activity is
likely to lead to lawsuits, litigation, or legal proceedings that may harm the company financially
or expose it to negative news headlines.
CSR strategies may be difficult to assess strategically because not all benefits may be
financially translatable back to the company. For example, it might be very difficult to assess
the positive impact to a company's brand image that planting 1 million trees may have.
Why Should a Company Implement CSR Strategies?
Many companies view CSR as an integral part of their brand image, believing that customers
will be more likely to do business with brands that they perceive to be more ethical. In this
sense, CSR activities can be an important component of corporate public relations. At the same
time, some company founders are also motivated to engage in CSR due to their convictions.
GUIDELINES FOR COUNCILS, UNIVERSITIES & COLLEGES
CURBING THE MENACE OF RAGGING
Ragging is a disturbing reality in the higher education system of our country. Despite the fact
that over the years, ragging has claimed hundreds of innocent lives and has ruined the careers
of thousands of bright students, the practice is still perceived by many as a way of
‘familiarisation’ and an ‘initiation into the real world’ for young college-going students.
The Ragging is defined as any disorderly conduct, whether by words spoken or written or by
an act, has the effect of teasing, treating, or handling with rudeness a fresher or a junior student.
Indulging in a rowdy or undisciplined activity that causes or is likely to cause annoyance,
hardship, or psychological harm or to raise fear or apprehension thereof in a fresher or junior
student. Asking the students to do any act or perform something that such students will not do
in the ordinary course and which has the effect of causing or generating a sense of shame or
embarrassment so as to adversely affect the physique or psyche of a fresher or junior student.
This can lead to adverse effects such as depression, anxiety, and sometimes even suicide.
Punishment Provisions
Any student or group of students found guilty of ragging on campus or off campus shall be
liable to one or more of the following punishments:
 Debarring from appearing in any sessional test/ university examination or withholding
results
 Suspension from attending classes and academic privileges
 Withdrawing scholarships and other benefits
 Suspension from the college for a period of one month
 Cancellation of admission
 Debarring from representing the institution in any national or international meet,
tournament, youth festival, etc
18HS71 - Constitution of India and Professional Ethics
Dept. of Industrial Engineering and Management
 Suspension/expulsion from the hostel
 Rustication from the institution for periods varying from 1 to 4 semesters or equivalent
period
 Expulsion from the institution and consequent debarring from admission to any other
institution
 Fine up to twenty five thousand rupees
 Imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to
ten thousand rupees or with both
Collective punishment - When the students committing or abetting the crime of ragging are not
identified, the institution shall resort to collective punishment as a deterrent to ensure
community pressure on the potential raggers.
Any institution that fails to take adequate steps to prevent ragging or fails to act in accordance
with the Regulations or fails to punish perpetrators or incidents of ragging suitably is liable to
the penalties and punishments as per the provisions of the Regulations.
No act of ragging, major or minor, shall go unnoticed. No ragger, male or female, student or
non-student, shall go unpunished. No institution that fails to take action against ragging shall
be allowed to operate.
The Supreme Court, in its judgement dated 08 May 2009 ordered the implementation of a
ragging prevention programme comprising, inter alia, setting up a toll-free anti-ragging
helpline/ call center, a database of institutions/ students, and engaging an independent non-
government agency as the monitoring agency.
Regulatory provisions and the appropriate law are in force to eliminate ragging in all its forms
from the universities,deemed universities and other higher educational institutions in the
country by prohibiting, preventing its occurrence and punishing those who indulge in ragging.
ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY IN INDIA
UGC Regulations on curbing the menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009
Ragging is a criminal offense and UGC has framed regulations on curbing the menace of
ragging in higher educational institutions in order to prohibit, prevent and eliminate the scourge
of ragging. In pursuance to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated
08.05.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 887/2009, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (g) of
sub-section (1) of section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the UGC notified
“Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009”.
These regulations are mandatory for all universities/ institutions.
ANTI-RAGGING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN INDIA
Anti-Ragging Monitoring Committee, Ministry of Education, Government of India. The Anti-
Ragging Committee for monitoring measures to prevent ragging in higher educational
institutions is constituted in the Ministry of Education, Government of India.
The Anti-Ragging Committee is instituted at each college or university to ensure compliance
with the provisions of the regulations as well as the provisions of any law for the time being in
force concerning ragging; investigate complaints and also, monitor and oversee the
performance of the Anti-Ragging Squad in prevention of ragging in the institution. The Anti-
Ragging Committee is responsible for inculcating a culture of Ragging Free Environment
onCampus. The Anti-Ragging Committee is involved in designing strategies and action plan
for curbing the menace of ragging in the college by adopting an array of activities. The
committee is also responsible for conducting awareness programmes from time-to-time on
campus.
Anti-Ragging Squads, Universities and Colleges
The Anti-Ragging Squad office bearers work under the supervision and guidance of the Anti-
Ragging Committee and engage in checking places like hostels, buses, canteens, grounds,
classrooms and other places of student congregation to keep a vigil and stop the incidences of
ragging, if any, and report them if they happen. The squad role is also to educate the students
at large by adopting various means about the menace of ragging and related punishment there
to.
Transparent Complaint Process
Specifically, after registering the complaint, the helpline executives forward it to four Higher
Authorities: University Vice-Chancellor | College Principal | SHO | City
SP/SSP/DCP/ASP/ACP | Council
The status of the complaint with complete follow-up can be accessed at the link below with
specific complaint number:www.antiragging.in
Note: The helpline NEVER discloses the identity of the victim without their permission and
consent. The team at the national helpline undertakes follow-up with the college’s Anti-
Ragging Committee (ARC) for investigation and ARC report till the satisfaction of the victim/
complainant. The complaint remains active in the helpline until the victim/ complainant is
satisfied with the action taken by the authorities. The consent in writing for closing the
complaint is taken from the victim/ complainant. If the case is not resolved to the satisfaction
of the victim/ complainant, the national helpline escalates the case to the Monitoring Agency
for further action in terms of advice, second opinion, or follow-up by the Monitoring agency
itself.
If the complainant is not satisfied with the action taken by the college or the college authorities
are not cooperating with the helpline centre, such cases are escalated to the University Grants
Commission and the respective council for intervention.
There is an online management system set up in the UGC premises for UGC to act on the
complaints that have been escalated to UGC. Any actions in terms of writing a letter, email,
phone calls etc. are being logged into the case file of the respective complaint. The case file is
also visible to the victim/
complainant - www.ugc.ac.in
Ragging Complaints Registration
The students in distress due to ragging-related incidents can contact National Anti-Ragging
Helpline 1800- 180-5522 (24x7 Toll Free) or e-mail to helpline@antiragging.in.
Or
They may also contact UGC Monitoring Agency i.e. Centre for Youth (C4Y) at
antiragging@c4yindia.org or
011-41619005 or 98180 44577 (only in case of emergency).
Students and Parents Undertaking Affidavit
In compliance of the second amendment in UGC Regulations, it is compulsory for each student
and every parent to submit an online Anti-Ragging undertaking affidavit every academic year.
The universities and colleges are also requested to implement the revised procedure for students
to file online Anti-Ragging affidavits. The student will receive an e-mail with her/ his
registration number. The student will forward that e-mail to the Nodal officer in her/ his
university/college e-mail. (Please note that the student will not receive pdf affidavits and she/
he is not required to print & sign it as it used to be in the earlier case).
Every public declaration of intent by any institution in electronic, audio-visual, online, social
media, print, website, admission prospectus/ booklet or any other media should expressly
mention that ragging is totally prohibited in the institution at the time of admission of students
in any course.
 The brochure of admission/ instruction booklet or prospectus, whether in print or electronic
format, shall prominently print these regulations in full.
 Institutions should display posters in all prominent locations showcasing the provisions of
penal law applicable to incidents of ragging.
 At the end of each academic year, the institution should send a letter to the parents/
guardians informing them about the Regulations and any law for the time being enforced
prohibiting ragging and its punishments.
 Institutions can issue public notices in the newspapers, update their websites with the nodal
officer’s complete details.
 Every fresher should be provided with a printed leaflet with all the information to seek help
and guidance from all authorities and agencies, and a calendar of events and activities laid
down by the institution to facilitate and complement the familiarisation of freshers with the
academic environment of the institution.
 Institutions should conduct joint sensitisation and orientation programmes for both freshers
and senior students.
 Institutions should constitute Anti-Ragging Committee and Anti-Ragging Squad which
will be responsible for spreading awareness and preventing the occurrence of ragging.
 Meeting of all staff, functionaries and agencies before the commencement of the academic
session.
 Institutions should launch a publicity campaign against ragging before the commencement
of the academic year.
 After the commencement of the academic year, the batch of freshers should be divided into
small groups and assigned to the faculty for difficulties and guidance.
 Random anonymous survey should be done among students about ragging, and it should
be a regular practice in the institution.
AWARENESS MEASURES FOR RAGGING FREE CAMPUSES
UGC designed and distributed four types of posters amongst Universities/ Regulatory
Authorities/ Councils/ IITs/ NITs/ other educational institutions for their prominent display.
These anti-ragging posters must be displayed at all prominent places like the Admission centre,
Departments, Library, canteen, Hostel, Common facilities, etc. These posters are available on
UGC