Local standards and engineering responsibility

[MartinLe]

I'm at a company based in Germany, where laws and bylaws for safety, emission control etc. are relativly strict (I think).
As wer become more active in interantional markets, we don't have to adhere to these high standards. Currently, do my (small) part that there's no to little compromise regarding workplace safety (when local standards are more lax than we are used to, this is simple because most of us share this sentiment), I don't voice concerns when an issue is 'purely' environmental (small example: we don't install an air scrubber if it's not obligated by local law), and I'm puzzled about what to do at the interface of (people's) health and emission control.
I'm no manager or decision maker, the only thing I can do is to say that I disagree with a certain approach, and why.

Of course, the reasoning of some of my collegues is that if we build everywhere according to german standards, we build nowhere because we are to expensive, and someone else will build the plant according to the lowes possible standards.

Now, I'm sure others outside my industry face similiar questions. How do you go about these questions, wjhat do you ask yourself before you raise concerns in your team or walk away from a project? Or don't? This question is incredibly broad, I know, I'm mostly fishing for the ways others go about these question so I can better define my way.

 

[cvg]

developments are required to conform to laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS) and you do need to follow these. You should avoid working for any client that wishes to cut corners and not follow LORS. There is no reason to impose stricter standards than required by local laws.

 

[EngineeringEric]

cvg, I think there are circumstances where one should impose stricter standards than required by local laws. It is an ethics question. When it comes to life safety i would design and require things to be built to my opinion of what is appropriate. Now often times this is influenced/dictated by current codes i am familiar with but there are some instances where codes are over cautious for generality or under cautious for being out of date or being too relax.

If we are talking about requiring a fire extinguisher in the kitchen... i'd go with local codes, but if we talking about a built in warning system to notify if harmful gases are being released i will go with what I deem safe. I my case i would design the strucutre for what i believe it will be loaded with, not what the local code states.

If you don't specify something for a building in a developing country which is standard in the developed world this is devaluing the individuals who will occupy and be affected by a mistake.

 

[cvg]

you can recommend anything in the design basis and it may be beyond minimum requirements, and if you feel strongly that additional safety requirements are necessary, than argue for them. but ultimately it is the owner that will make the decision.

 

[zelgar]

The legal answer is to follow the local laws & regulations. The ethics problem can occur if you know the local laws & regulations are not adequate. Items like workplace safety & environmental issues are probably the items you'll need to address. I doubt that you'll approve of anything that is an imminent danger, but where do you draw the line is a difficult question (and the one you've asked).

I think you'll need to evaluate the following, in no particular order:
1. Cost - if there isn't a significant cost difference, design it better
2. Liability - if you're doing business in other countries, if your design fails, how will it impact your other business. Do you want to be the company responsible for X (e.g., deaths, explosions, damages) when you know that it would not be acceptable at home?
3. How stringent are local laws/regulations - if a country has similar laws, I wouldn't be as concerned of needing to overdesing compared to ones without the safety/environmental laws or grossly inadequate ones.
4. Time - if you have sufficient time, I'd make multiple designs that would address the min. specs & Germany's requirements. That way you'll have at least provided your client with options.

 

[DerbyLoco]

About 12 years ago I worked in the concrete manufacturing industry and we had a lot of German machinery which we always had to add additional gaurds and interlocks to as the German requirements were way below those called for in the UK. As supplied you could have opened mixer doors whilst they were running or walked under finger cars with no fences.
Not entirely relavent to the original post but of interest maybe!
I do agree with the main point and would not be happy to think that I was involved in supplying something that complied with all the local laws applicable to the customer but which would not be permitted in the home market on health or safety grounds or was otherwise a bit "iffy"