Understanding the architect's role, and the place of ethics with it, requires understanding architecture as a profession. Professionalism is at core a social contract or bargain ¹⁷) made between "knowledge communities" ¹⁴) and society, wherein those experts are accorded certain privileges and protections in exchange for self-policing and serving public interest ¹⁴²⁶¹⁷). But professionalisation is more than just a "search for status, trust and autonomy through the certification of superior knowledge" ¹⁴, the value of the work to the professional is greater because of its value to the individual and to society than of its market value ¹⁴²⁶. It is broadly and relatively uncritically accepted within the profession, that architecture is a public good ³¹. The establishment of a professional body to regulate both education and registration, minimum standards of knowledge and competency, and having a code of ethics are all taken to be evidence for this ¹⁴³⁷¹⁷). Architects' professional organisations set out the role of architects and the necessary areas of competency required to perform that role.

A range of activities make up the scope of architects professional services, from site selection through to construction completion (NZIA). There are points all along the process of creating new buildings and urban spaces, at which architects' skills and knowledge can positively impact the social and environmental outcomes of our work -or indeed negatively impact these outcomes (Fernandez-Antolin et al 2022;

Architects:

Feminist ethics of care was first articulated in the 1980s in response to a perceived gap in traditional western ethics, in that it did not address the domestic sphere, only the public ³⁸. Further, traditional ethical traditions also typically centre on the rational autonomous agent, a way of being that does not reflect many women's reality or experience of the world ³⁸. Carol Gilligan's seminal 1982 work A Different Voice identified that psychology and ethics at the time only studied men and were missing half the population, half the sample ¹⁰. In listening to the voices of women on moral issues, Gilligan heard "the voices of psychological theory [of the time] intoning separation, autonomy, and independence, and…women's voices speaking about relationships and interdependence" ¹⁰. Her work highlighted "the tension between human psychology and the culture of patriarchy" ¹⁰. Following on from this work, Nel Noddings set out to formulate a theory of ethics based upon the care perpective that Gilligan identified ⁸. Care ethics focuses on the relations between people, emphasising that the ethical response is dependant on circumstance and the nature of the relation ³⁸. In this way care ethics can grapple with dependent relations, disparate need, and questions of power ²⁷ -an intersectional lens deepens the abiltiy of care ethics to address these imbalances ³⁹). While at first care ethics was adopted principally into domestic relations and caring professions (eg medical professions) since the early part of this century, care ethics has increasingly been used to examine wider social, political, and global concerns ³⁸.

Although the current NZ code of ethics is not explicitly grounded in any particular ethical tradition or framework, the political and theoretical space that the code was developed within can be understood as informed by the dominant Western ethical traditions of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics ³⁷.

Consequentialism/Utilitarianism ³⁶:

Deontology ³⁵:

Virtue Ethics ⁴⁰:

Ethics of Care ³⁸:

A key difference between care ethics and the dominant Western traditions is the focus, not on an autonomous disinterested agent, but on the caring relations that we all experience and operate within, and what that means for our responsibilty to care for others ³⁸. Virginia Held argues that these dominant moral theories are too abstract and that they approach moral questions as "conflicts between egoistic individual interests… and universal moral principals", overlooking the everyday space between these extremes -it is this liminal zone that care ethics is particularly interested in ³⁸.

Due to this relational aspect of care, care theorists acknowledge that rather than being truly autonomous, people are relationally-autonomous or heteronomous agents ¹⁵. The agency dilemma suggests that an agent who is not autonomous – who is influenced or dominated by an other - cannot be considered to be moral, or held morally responsible for their actions ¹⁵. Similarly, the concept that “ought implies can” (that is if a person cannot act then they cannot be morally obligated to do so) removes moral agency and responsibility in the absence of the ability to act ⁴. Some feminist theorists have argued for the ability of heteronomous agents to be held morally responsible ¹⁵, and despite the wide acceptance of “ought implies can”, there are arguments against this concept, ⁴ suggests that whilst we may not blame someone for failing to act where they cannot, that does not necessarily remove their moral responsibility. This has impacts for professionals obligated to serve their client’s interest – are their actions truly autonomous, and if not can they be held morally accountable? Professional codes of ethics include requirements to act autonomously, or disinterestedly, yet also to serve the client interest within the bounds of the law ¹⁴. Though not a heteronomous agent (subject to rule from outside themself) the architect’s decisions are subject to building and planning codes, client needs and preferences, cultural influences, economic conditions. ¹⁶ makes the case for “relational automony” as a means to assert the normative autonomy of an agent whose autonomy is “impaired”, using the example of a patient in a heathcare scenario. Whilst the scenario of a healthcare patient, and that of an architect are dissimilar, the concept of relational autonomy holds potential as a way to consider the intersecting roles and obligations of professionalism.

While some theorists locate ethics of care within virtue ethics, and others consider it the 'primary virtue', Held (2006) maintains that without care nothing else can exist (that one's survival, from birth, is dependant on care) and frames care as the broader design within which all other ethical traditions should be located. Regardless of social status, life experience, or health, everyone will experience care -either giving or receiving -over the course of their life ³⁹), and will have a sense of the quality of that care, whether good, bad, or indifferent ³⁸. Sander-Staudt (2006) addresses the "unhappy marriage" of virtue ethics and care ethics, making the case for each to maintain "theoretical autonomy", avoiding entanglement or domination of one over the other, whilst providing mutual benefit. In a similar vein, Helga Varden (forthcoming) argues that "Bringing Kant's philosophy into dialogue with care theorists…advances the insights of both traditions by showing one way to arrive at a multifaceted, yet unified account of human care relations where our embodied, social as well as our rational natures are given due consideration."

Criticisms of care ethics include the care-giver dominating the care-reciever, and conversely the care-giver subsumming themself to the act of care, putting the needs of others ahead of their own ²⁷,²¹. Toxic forms of care do exist and are part of why an ethics of care is necessary, as is an understanding of justice ethics to support it ³⁸. Ethical care should involve enabling people (both care-givers and carerecievers) to realise their own agency ³⁸. ⁵ addresses the contradictory conceptions of care -as complex and often problematic social practices, and as a moral ideal -and frames care as a "thick ethical concept" conveying both discriptive and evaluative concepts.

Feminist criticism of care ethics includes concerns that cares ethics reinforces traditional gender roles and attitudes ²¹, and takes a narrow (white, western) view of womanhood and care ³⁹. The importance of ‘feminist’ in feminist ethics of care is that care ethics is for all genders ³⁸. Care ethics takes a critical view of traditional practices of care and the patriarchal conditions under which they are created ³⁸. These traditional practices can obscure and oppress reciprocal values of care, and care ethics seeks to bring attention to these values and extend them “as appropriate throughout society, along with justice.” ³⁸ ,³⁹ sets out an argument for an “intersectionally inspired care ethics”, and the corollary of incorporating care into intersectional theory. Stating that “care ethics and intersectionality share normative ideals towards social justice”, Hankivsky suggests that care ethics in dialogue with intersectionality can “punctuate attention to social diversity and inequities of power” ³⁹.

"It is the relatedness of human beings, built and rebuilt, that the ethics of care is being developed to try to understand, evaluate, and guide. " -Virgina Held (2006)³⁸.

The Registered Architects Act 2005 establishes the New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB) and requires the board to formulate a set of rules for registered architects. These are then established in law as Registered Architects Rules 2006, and were last updated in 2018. The Act requires those rules to contain minimum standards of competence, minimum standard for demonstrating competence, and minimum standards of ethical conduct. The current Rules have a broad outline of the areas of competence for registration, a detailed accounting of the process to maintain registration, and then a set of specific rules for ethical conduct, which is also reproduced as a two page document, the New Zealand Architects' Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct, by the NZRAB.

The current Act replaced the Architects Act 1963, under which the Architects Education and Registration Board (AERB) was responsible for the registration of architects, and the creation of a code of ethics.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has recently begun a review of the Architects Act 2006 as part of broader building industry reforms. These reforms are guided by the 1999 Cabinet Policy for Occupational Regulation, which requires occupational regulation where there is a risk of significant harm to the public. The Ministry's consultation document poses several questions, including whether architects still need to be regulated by legislation, and how the gap between Registered Architects and Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) could be closed ⁵⁷.

This study involved an analysis of the New Zealand Architects’ Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct 2018, alongside selected codes of conduct and ethics for architects from Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union, as well as the codes of ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) and Engineers in New Zealand. These are set out in Table 1.

This study involved an analysis of the New Zealand Architects' Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct 2018, alongside selected codes of conduct and ethics for architects from Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union, as well as the codes of ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) and Engineers in New Zealand. These are set out in . As previously noted, the New Zealand code of ethics is embeded in legislation. The ARB architects code is also required by legislation, Architects Act 1997, and can be used in disciplinary matters relating to registration. The Australian model code contains "the core requirements to be adopted in each State and Territory" to meet the requirements of the 2003 Act, where it would then be enforceable (AACA & RAIA 2003). The NCARB model rules are also designed to be adopted by the registration boards in various states, and to be enforceable in relation to architects' legal status and ability to practice. The AIA and RIBA codes of ethics are only enforceable over those architects who choose to join these professional institutes. The EU Deontological Code is not "legally binding unless it is made binding either by European Union or National legislation or by contract between a provider of architectural services and a client or other user or otherwise as a matter of public or private law" ⁴⁷.

The various codes have different degrees of organisation and categorization. Out of the codes for architects, the NZRAB code is the most simple, having been reduced to a two-page document, with no preamble and no categories organizing the seventeen. The ARB code has a simple format, with a list of twelve headline rules, for a total of forty- one clauses. Like the NZRAB code the ARB code has not organized these twelve headline rules into categories. The ACA model code has organised their forty-two rules/clauses into four sets of obligations: General Obligations, Obligations to the Client, Obligations to the Profession, and Obligations to the Public. The Australian model code is structured in two parts. Part A are the Professional Standards and Part B is the Service and Conduct Standards. This creates a clear distinction between the disciplinary and legal function of the code, and the aspirational ethical guidelines of the code. Within Part B, the Australian model code is organised under seven categories, similar to those of the ACA model code, with some additional specific categories. The AIA code of ethics is also similar to the ACA code with Obligations to the Profession being split to add Obligations to Colleagues as a separate category, and Obligations to the Public being split into categories for both Public and Environment.

Following the organization of the various codes, this research identifies five areas of attention:

Whilst there is often overlap between the application of particular clauses , we have reviewed the different codes, and attempted to determine the weighting/prioritisation given to these five areas of attention by each code. Appendix A contains a table of these allocations.

Figure 1 shows the number of rules or standards in each code of ethics for architects (excluding the professional organisations), and how they are assigned to the five areas of attention identified above. The first observation is how much leaner than the other codes, the New Zealand architects code is. Australian, British, and European codes are fairly similar in the number of standards/rules included, but vary in weighting. The weighting of the codes is clearer in the pie charts shown in Figure 2 (which includes the professional orgnaisations).

The New Zealand code does not include any requirement to have a care for or consider impacts on the environment, and the only public interest matters it covers is health and safety. The code is weighted towards the service provided to the client and the protection of the profession. This weighting is apparent in the other codes as well, and is in line with observations made by others, including Hossien Sadri in a similar review of architectural professional ethics in 2021. Professional Ethics in Architecture and Responsibilities of Architects towards Humanity compared the 2008 draft text of the Chamber of Architects of Turkey Deontological Codes in Architecture, the RIBA Code of Professional Conduct 2005, and the AIA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct 2007. Sadri observes that “these documents are written in order to identify the boundaries of the profession, and aim to protect its market share, improve its image, obtain cultural capital and get public approval for the profession” ²⁵. The RIBA and AIA codes have been updated since this earlier study, and it is interesting to note that the AIA 2020 code of ethics is the most evenly distributed code across the five areas of attention.

As previously noted, the Australian model code is in two parts: professional standards, and service and conduct standards. Comparing the service and conduct standards alone to the New Zealand architects’ code of ethics, suggests that the New Zealand code is a service and conduct code, rather than a code of professional ethics. The New Zealand code is also very similar to the NCARB Model Rules of Conduct which is explictly a set of conduct rules for disciplinary purposes only, not a code of ethics ⁵⁰.

Looking at Responsibilities to Society more closely, the inclusion or exclusion of equity issues is a significant difference across the codes. Note that this study has allocated compliance with laws under General Professionalism rather than Responsibilities to Society as this is principally referencing building and planning legislation, construction law, contract law, fraud, tax law, etc, though a broad interpretation would include complance with nondiscrimination laws. Neither the New Zealand code nor the NCARB code include any rules or standards regarding discrimination or equity. The ACE, RIBA, and AIA codes all include requirements to pay employees and interns equitably, and an obligation to attend to the education of students and trainees working under a registered/licenced architect.

Interestingly, while several codes include requirements to provide 'fair' service fees, the ACE code also has clauses specifically addressing low fees and "unscrupulous under-resourcing" ⁴⁷. There have historically been issues in Anglo-American countries with professional organisations being criticised or even sued for being "antitrust" due to professional codes containing rules against competive fees and client 'poaching' (¹²¹²,³³. The ACE phrasing of ‘unscrupulous under-resourcing’ appears to be a way to address the concern of fees becoming too low to provide a professional service without conflicting with anti-trust legislation.

Marcuse (1976) addresses the importance of whistleblowing with regard to matters of public health and safety, and all of the codes including the New Zealand code, do include requirements to report on matters that affect public health and safety. The UK and US codes all include a requirement to report on colleagues for breaching the code, which may be more about protecting the reputation of the profession. An interesting inclusion in the Australian model code is the requirement to inform the client, not only of the client’s legal obligations, but also of their obligations to moral rights raised by the project ⁴⁶

Comparing the New Zealand registered architects’ code of ethics, with the new code for licenced building practitioners and the engineers’ code offers shows a greater similarity in the goal of simplicity and brevity. Figure 3 shows the number of rules or standards in each code and how they are assigned to the five areas of attention. The architects’ code has more clauses related to General Professionalism and significantly more for Responsibilities to Profession, where the LBP code has none. The engineers’ code is the leanest, but also the most evenly weighted, though profession, society and environment add up to one third, with professionalism and client responsibilities each a third (see Figure 4). Both the LBP and engineers’ codes have requirements to avoid harm to the environment, which as previously noted is lacking in the architects’ code.

While, like the architects' code, neither the IEP or LBP codes address Te Tiriti O Waitangi or any matters under Tikanga Māori, both codes are available Te Reo Māori, and the LBP code is also available in Chinese, Hindi, and Samaon. The LBP code does require acknowledgement and respect of "cultural norms and values of clients and colleagues."

In his 1976 article Professional Ethics and Beyond, Peter Marcuse, sets out nine "ethical prescriptions" with the source of obligation, and the nature of enforcement, for planning as a profession. These are:

Situating the New Zealand architects' code of ethics within Marcuse's framework highlights how, other than the requirements to comply with legislation and to report on risk, the rules all fall under the professional obligation and are enforceable, rather than aspirational or hortatory. More concerning is how heavily weighted to client allegiance the LBP code of ethics is, and its complete lack of clauses relating to autonomy. The requirement to inform and educate the client comes closest to the idea of professional autonomy but is framed such that it returns responsibility to the client: "You must provide your client with sufficient information and advice to enable them to make an informed decision to enable you to continue with your building work." (Building (Code of Ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners) Order 2021).

While the existing New Zealand architects' code of ethics deals only with that which can be clearly defined for the purposes of discipline (the architect either did or did not do), it does address ethical considerations such as honesty (though this is a fraught concept in itself ²)), conflicts of interest, and abuse of authority. These are, however, principally in relation to the client or the contract, or to the profession. No part of the current code requires New Zealand registered architects to be responsible in their design work and professional or community relationships, beyond the minimum financial and technical matters. As ²⁵ also found "issues such as [the] construction industry, construction techniques and materials which are directly related to the field of architecture but are not included in architects' job descriptions, remain outside of the interests of architectural ethics."

By weighting the architect's ethical obligations to the service provided to the client, the existing code leaves open the question of whether the architect is truly autonomous with respect to public and environmental considerations, or whether their decisions and actions are pre-empted by their duty to the client ¹⁴. Arguably, this puts the profession in a position where society may not be able to hold architects morally responsible for their actions in relation to these matters, if they cannot be deemed to be acting autonomously from their clients' goals and intentions ¹⁵. This framing casts architects as passive in the face of our collective crises ²⁵.

The existing NZ code does not address matters of environmental responsibility, and the only matter of public interest is health & safety, and the architect's obligation to report on risk. A glaring absence is any reference to our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi or considerations of tikanga Māori. Viewed through a care ethics lens the current New Zealand architects' code of ethics is biased towards legal and contractual issues and to the maintenance of reputation, rather than care and the maintenance of relations. We conclude that the existing New Zealand architects' code of ethics would be more accurately described as a code of conduct only. As Peter ¹⁷ said: "if a given task is harmful, executing it professionally is not desirable" and with regard to ethical considerations the code is woefully incomplete and is not adequate to deal with broader public and environmental issues, let alone the crises that we currently face.

The comparision of codes of ethics and conduct identified areas of attention focused upon the responsibilities of architects. Building upon the distinction between autonomous and relationally autonomous, and the idea that the autonomy of architects is relational to external factors and influences, these areas of attention can be refocused onto the ‘relational’ aspect of each area, enabling them to be reframed as loci of relation:

Figure 6 shows how the loci of relation relate to Peter Marcuse’s ethical prescriptions (1976). Statutory responsibilities are left to the side in this configuration, as the obligation to comply with legislation is the fact of legislation. Dissent is related to automony, which alongside competence is the foundation of general professionalism. Marcuse seperated out advancement of knowledge (something not addressed in the current New Zealand architects’ code) in his analysis of ethics within the planning profession in the United States. Advancement of knowledge is related to education and training, and raising standards of excellence, and is here relinked back through the guild to colleagiality.

The comparision of codes of ethics and conduct identified areas of attention focused upon the responsibilities of architects. Building upon the distinction between autonomous and relationally autonomous, and the idea that the autonomy of architects is relational to external factors and influences, these areas of attention can be refocused onto the 'relational' aspect of each area, enabling them to be reframed as loci of relation: Ethics of care theorists have generally argued that as care is situational and responsive, a code is not the way to achieve ethical relations and that care ethics must be embedded in practice to avoid it becoming a box checking exercise ³⁸. Collier argues that "universalistic principles and rules are of little use to [architects]" due to the difficulty of knowing which set of rules in a pluralistic society to apply and how to apply them "in complex human situations where exceptions are the rule and conflicts of interest prevail" ⁷, as well as the dissonance between relational and rule-based expectations ¹⁰⁷. Individual architects may vary in the degree of their conscious engagement in ethical practice, and the framework of other international codes may provide some pathways for this. Structuring a code as the ARB has done, offers a poster format with the core intentions, and then further discussion and specifics in subsequent sections. Combining this with the split between aspirational ethics, and disciplinary conduct standards, as does the Australian model code, may begin to approach a code (or set of codes) that could provide both ethical guidance for complex situations and rules of professional behaviour. Different situations do call for different responses, and architects should be supported by our code of ethics to navigate these tricky situations ¹².

The decisions of relationally autonomous moral agents are not made in isolation and disinterest ¹⁶, ³⁸. Situate a relationally autonomous moral agent within a pluralistic society and the judgements that the moral agent -the architect -needs to make, become unable to be reduced to a set of universal rules ⁷. Determining how to deal with complex and sometimes contra-indicated issues is part of an ethical practice ¹²⁷, and it is arguably in that place of practice that professional ethics needs particular strengthening rather than simply in a written code ²⁴. ⁷ makes the case for the use of 'moral imagination' within architecture to aid in these judgements.

Architects are comfortable and confident at working with a range of components (services, structure, function, budget) that may have conflicting needs and priorities, and weaving them together to create a cohesive set that can be understood as a whole ¹². Held (2006) describes a design of feminist moral theory as being like a “stained glass window” with components from justice, utility, and virtue ethics situated within caring relations. “The whole should be harmonious, but that does not mean that the components cannot differ significantly.” ³⁸.

A new design for architects’ professional ethics should incorporate the five loci of relation within a broader ethical framework based in an ethics of care

These five loci of relation would then be located within an over-arching philosophy of care and relation, as illustrated in preliminary form, in Figure 7. Building on Virginia Held’s proposition for an overall moral theory, each loci would incorporate ethical principles from te ao Māori, justice ethics, virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and further, as appropriate to the relevant relation.