Earlier this year Yorkshire Forced Rhubarb became the latest regional food to be given “Protected Designation of Origin” status. Like Parma Ham, Champagne or Melton Mowbray Pork Pies, if you produce rhubarb somewhere that’s not Yorkshire and sell it as Yorkshire Forced Rhubarb, you’re breaking the law.
It’s important to know where your rhubarb comes from. But is it more important than having full confidence in an engineer’s abilities? In some places the title of a professional engineer has less legal protection than a stick of rhubarb. In others, there are teams of lawyers actively pursuing misuse of the word “engineering” using trademark law.
There are two common themes that have influenced the development of the various accreditation and registration systems around the world. The most important of these is protection of the public. Another is the inference of experience and trust that being a professional engineer connotates. The distinction being that a professional engineer has practiced engineering effectively in a commercial setting, as opposed to having learnt about it in an academic setting.
The way the distinction between “amateur” and “professional” is made, recognised and protected varies throughout the world. An engineer’s competence can be assessed and qualified by their peers or a government approved body, it can depend entirely on academic qualifications, or it can be licensed by government-approved external examinations. Titles of professional engineers may then be protected through law, administered by approved bodies, or not protected at all.
When considering the way professional engineer’s titles are protected throughout the world, it helps to split it into three different regions: Europe, the US and the rest of the world. Each region has a different approach, although there are nuances within each area.
In Europe regulation tends to prefer academic qualifications as proof of professional titles. Within Europe there are then differences that reflect the history of the profession and how it has developed over several centuries in different places.
Northern European countries such as Sweden and Norway have an entirely free market approach. Legally, there is nothing stopping anyone calling themselves an engineer in these places. Southern Europe is at the other end of the spectrum – there is full statutory regulation of function and title. For example in Italy, the title is highly protected by the government, which sponsors a registering body. This means if you want to be an engineer in Italy you have to be a graduate with a masters level equivalent degree from a government-approved university, there is no peer-reviewed, competence-based route.
Elsewhere in Southern Europe, such as in Spain and Portugal, regulation for the title of “engineer” is also statutory. Whereas across Central Europe and into France and the UK there is a mix of approaches. The Italian approach is shared by Germany and is highly regulated. In Holland there are membership bodies, but not qualifying bodies. In France, the UK and Ireland, the use of the title “engineer” does not require an academic degree. But, professional engineering titles require the person to have studied for five years or more and the use of certain terms is regulated by law. The title in France is “Ingénieur diplômé” (Graduate Engineer), which corresponds to the UK and Ireland’s “Chartered Engineer” status.
As with many other places, in France, the UK and Ireland there are certain “reserved activities” that only a professionally titled engineer can do. Regulation in these activities can be seen to cover the lack of statutory restrictions on the use of the word “engineer”. Reserved activities are normally in areas where the work is vital and the protection of the public or important infrastructure is at stake. They can be regulated in several ways: directly by the government, where individuals are approved and usually go on a register overseen by a qualifying body; generic regulation of function, as often happens in the aerospace sector, or regulation of the activity itself, as is often used in the rail sector.
There are also standards for products and processes throughout the world, such as BSI and ISO, where the onus is on the company, not the individual, to ensure that engineers are doing their jobs correctly and protect the public.
The Engineering Council is the body responsible for administering the register of professional engineers in the UK and stopping the misuse of the title “chartered engineer” and its post nominal CEng. Jon Prichard, chief executive of the Engineering council, says: “Although engineering is a self-regulating profession in the UK, we are broadly similar to our counterparts in Europe. Where we have no statutory regulation, legislation from other sources exists.
“Ultimately in whichever country you operate in Europe, the employer is responsible to the client for the provision of the service contracted.”
In North America, the approach is to license professional engineers and engineering practices. Each US state has its own licensing board and a licence is only valid in the state where it is awarded, although reciprocal agreements exist between states that remove the need to repeat examinations.
Different states approach licensing differently - some issue generic licenses and some issue licences by engineering discipline. There is also “industrial exemption”, whereby companies can call employees an “engineer” without the individual meeting the requirements for licensed status. This is also used for the development of products and processes sold interstate.
You can be a graduate engineer without being a licensed “PE” and the US therefore also licenses reserved activities of engineers. This is enforced by a system where a licensed engineer is required to “sign off” work by stamping or sealing documents. There are criticisms of this system. In particular non-US engineering companies operating in North America may employ a registered US engineer to check drawings and apply a stamp before the drawing goes out the door. Prichard asks: “Has that individual checked all the calculations and fully understood that drawing, or has he just applied a stamp?”
In Canada, usage of the title engineering is very strictly enforced and is the only place where the actual words “engineer” and “engineering” are protected by law. The requirements to become a professional engineer in Canada are similar to elsewhere. But once you are one of the 260,000 registered engineers in Canada, a unique amount of effort is expended to protect that title. The national body, Engineers Canada and its 12 provincial member associations, actively defend against the misuse of the title and term using legal teams funded by member subscriptions. The provincial associations deal with local issues, and Engineers Canada deals with national trademarks and businesses.
According to the chief executive of Engineers Canada, Kim Allen: "In Canada, the paramount obligation of engineers is to protect the public interest. Using a trade-mark or business name that incorporates the term engineering gives the public the message that the services are offered by licensed engineers. Otherwise, the public is misled as to the qualifications of those offering engineering services.”
Prichard from the Engineering Council in the UK questions the effectiveness of the approach: “We’re pragmatic in the UK. I’m not sure what pursuing trademark issues to do with engineering achieves. Not every function needs to be protected. In the UK, the closer you are to working with the public instead of an informed client, the more likely you’re occupation is regulated. But There’s not many engineers who deal directly with the public. The regulatory response has to be proportional.”
The systems and laws in the USA, Canada and Europe are settled and well-established. Meanwhile, in many places in the “rest of the world”, accreditation systems and legal positions are being developed to be in line with international agreements such as the Washington Accord, which recognises the equivalence of undergraduate engineering programs. There are exceptions to this, places such as South Africa, Singapore, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand, where systems are better established and similar in structure to those used in Europe and the US.
However, developing countries like China and India reportedly produce hundreds of thousands of engineers a year. The lack of developed professional qualification systems in these places can cause confusion about the quality of their engineers. According to the Engineering Council, the quality of courses is generally good, but the title “engineer” can be conferred onto people with lower-end qualifications, boosting the statistics.
Head of International for the Engineering Council, Katy Turff, says: “We get slightly conflicting information about whether or not they have professional qualifications and titles as we would recognise them. But they certainly have intentions to develop them and are looking at other models, including the UK model, to bring their system into line internationally.”
This confusion can lead to problems determining if an engineer from one of these regions has the knowledge and experience a company recruiting or hiring engineers expects. The only way around this issue is to talk to regional contacts to check out credentials, or use interviewing to expose deficiencies in knowledge and experience. However, institutions and professional bodies do exist in developing countries. There is also the international “ivy league” of academic institutions in those countries in which people can place trust.
Both India and China are applying to join the Washington Accord. India and particularly China, also have ambitious plans to export their manufacturing and engineering industries. China uses its large state-owned companies as an apparatus to invest international aid and thereby increase its international presence. Such activity increases the need to have engineers that are internationally recognised. In contrast Russia, despite having massive amounts of industry, resources and good engineers, does not have the same kind of international ambitions. Correspondingly Russia doesn’t have a professional title or registration system. They do have membership bodies, and they have done a lot in terms of accreditation of engineering programs - the country is a member of international degree accreditation program EURACE and the Washington Accord, says Turff.
“They have an accreditation system which is internationally comparable. But not all of their degree programs are recognised under those programs. They are looking to develop a professional level of qualification, but its in the early stages,” she says.
The Engineering Council works with other organisations, such as the Chinese Academy of Science and Technology, on academic and professional qualification issues to help them develop systems that can be internationally recognised. The Engineering Council only receives a “handful” of complaints from British engineers who want their qualifications recognised overseas. Turff says: “The person may be working as an engineer and calling themselves an engineer, and there is no problem with that. But they want their title recognised, for whatever reason.That doesn’t mean they can’t work, as long as they are not doing an activity that is reserved in that country.”
The “solid” reputation of UK education and engineers around the world helps build international relationships. British engineers and firms are usually involved in most major projects around the world, and Prichard says there is “reasonable recognition” of the UK’s chartered status as an “international mobility ticket”.
But the main advantage that the British and similar systems have over stricter systems says Prichard, is flexibility about becoming recognised as professional engineer through experience, not just academic qualifications. However, engineering skills shortages mean that the competence-based model is being increasingly used around the world.
Prichard says: “Things have changed a lot in the last decade. The internet is transforming sectors like education, you have to be agile and responsive to the latest trends. It will lead to a greater demand for competence based assessment because there won’t be anything else solid to pin an assessment on. My vision is that other countries move to this approach to allow qualification via all pathways, not just the academic route.”
It’s unlikely that a single global standard for professional engineers will emerge, at least in the short term. When key stakeholders of the profession, such as governments, clients and the users of infrastructure, demand accountability and responsibility from their engineers, it is provided, albeit differently in different regions.
Accountability and protection of the public is the primary reason regulations and registers exist, not as a means to boost engineers reputations in society. In each case when good work is done, trust and and positive reputations follow, more so than regulations and legal statutes could ever provide.