Your client demands unsafe materials for a project. How do you navigate this risky situation?

Part of the Creed of an EHS professional is to stand up and be a voice for the employees when we see something that could be done safer. Knowingly using unsafe equipment, untrained employees or bypassing a safeguard is entirely against this Creed. The better solution is to use your skillset to proactively engage the leadership teams to understand and commit to this same level of concern for others long before these kinds of dilemmas occur

One of the reasons we get hire by a client, is because of the technical and professional experience we bring to every project. It is our job to keep an open communication with our clients and explain in a kindly manner why the importance of following safety and ethical procedures. Explaining the why, but also providing alternative solutions will ensure a successful project,and also increase the trust the client has on us.

> Clearly communicate that using unsafe materials is unacceptable due to ethical, legal, and safety risks. > Explain the potential consequences of using unsafe materials, such as project failure, legal liabilities, and harm to people. > Propose safe and effective alternatives that meet project requirements without compromising safety.

I would begin by clearly explaining the potential risks associated with using the requested materials, including health hazards, legal liabilities, and long-term consequences for both the project and the client. Next, I would propose alternative materials or methods that meet the project's requirements while ensuring safety and compliance.

BETTER PRACTICES: I think back on some projects decades ago where furniture, padded walls, draperies, carpet, plastics were used, which over time as an industry, we learned were highly flammable, cancerous, toxic, etc. Gladly, most of those projects are renovated to current codes or demolished. We didn't know better at the time. Many manufacturers were remiss in education. And regulations did not exist. Sometimes learned through tragic incidents. Codes for materials and design details actually help a professional ethically/legally, by narrowing options available. One loophole that is still vexing, is leaving a final determination up to a contractor, w/finish specs that read:"or equal to".Often a contractor cares only about cost, not safety.

If 'novated' over to the contractor in a D&B contract the architect is no longer independent and advising the client. They are contractually obliged to do meet the contractor's (the client) needs, not those of the building owner/user (not the client). Ethically all architects try to be designing for the endusers but, unless the contractor's proposal would be illegal, the contractor has no obligation to follow the architect's advice.

I often find that due to cost-cutting I find myself having to put a foot down firmly in order for the correct materials to be used. A number of brands want to save eg. on the use of fire-retardant materials on furniture in public spaces. Siting the local building regulations usually works.

COMPLIANCE/NOT OPTIONAL: Laws exist to protect the public, whether in private or public spaces. They can also help professional's in making their job easier. A client cannot argue with the law. A client cannot force you to disobey the law. Risk for a professional in the case of injury/death caused by specified products is measured by 'what you should have known or could have known' in your professional capacity. Obeying the law is not optional. Oddly, some primitive and beautiful natural materials can be more code compliant than some more trendy petrochemical materials. Green materials can sometimes be a better choice all around with cost, aesthetics, and safety.

TOUCHY / FEELY: In my experience over the years, the tactile and visual experience for a client is invaluable in decision making and education with clients. So many younger professionals feel that electronic sample boards are enough. I will always believe that we do not choose clothing, perfume, music, cars, shoes, etc. without making qualitative judgements based on sensory experience. Like a Zoom meeting will never replace eye to eye relational experiences in real time with real meet ups. Often a client can be convinced of a better solution if shown something similar that meets code, OR is shown a crazy new option, that was forged in a battle over compliance. Challenges can often spark more creativity.And they're more rewarding in the end.

I have always found that explaining and educating why something either won’t work, or is inappropriate for the intended usage, before it unravels too much, is the key to ensuring that the client understands the long term implications and potential consequences. For the most part this is enough to alter their plans. We should have all learnt from Grenfell the human cost to being careless with safety decisions. If the client insists on taking an unsafe course of action that I feel is unethical and something I’m uncomfortable with, I will, reluctantly, part company with them and/or the project.

BETTER SOLUTIONS: Sometimes in project design better solutions w/design details or materials come out of restrictions. Sometimes clients ask for a crazy thing that they've seen online, yet not viable or allowed by code. These situations require tact, education and some research to come up with a similar outcome that meets code and does not expose the client or designer to future lawsuits. I remember a casino hotel that burned for 3 days, killing hundreds, because of toxic gasses from unsafe plastic materials. The law reads that a professional is liable for what he/she should have known or could have known in best practices. Great ideas can emerge out of vexing limitations, making the job challenging but the outcome rewarding if done right.