Does the practice publicly refuse to work with certain clients, suppliers or organisations on ethical grounds?

Front-runner

Marks Barfield Architects

The practice has taken a principled ethical position with regard to taking work or tendering projects in certain countries where Governments or ruling regime's are known to oppress free speech and or carry out political oppression.  We have turned down opportunities in countries (in the Middle East) if we could not see that the clients shared our ethos on climate emergency and social justice. We carefully consider the practical implications of carrying out work in countries where the extreme locational distance would require extensive air travel. 

We have also taken a principled position within our industry by questioning the M&S Oxford St development by attending and speaking at the public enquiry in defence of retaining the existing building and then by subsequently submitting a proposal for the RIBA Re-Store competition, for which we are shortlisted.

Runner-up

Grain Architecture

We openly refuse to work on projects that don't prioritise sustainability, and on many occasions we have refused to work with or walked away from projects that have shown they have no intention of trying to take environmental responsibility. We make it clear in our appointment contract that projects must attempt to follow a set of ecological ethics or we may refuse to continue the work, and although we accept that there will of course be compromises and all projects have some negative impacts, we do not consider striving for our principles to be optional in the face of global climate and ecological emergencies.

Ones to watch

JTP

We are not afraid to publicly refuse to work with certain clients. We were recently named in the Architects Journal for our stance that we would neither work nor pursue opportunities in Saudi Arabia due to a myriad of concerns. In addition, all opportunities for new projects are discussed weekly at the management meeting for an open discussion on whether we are happy to proceed with both the project and the client. Our client base is reviewed annually for our Business Plan to understand those who align with our objectives and see if there are any we no longer align with. We have a supplier code of conduct to ensure all our suppliers align with our own corporate responsibility towards people, communities, and environment.

HLM Architects

LM Architects publicly refuses to work with certain clients, suppliers, or organisations on ethical grounds. Our bid go/no-go decision matrix includes key questions to assess the alignment between our values and those of potential clients. This systematic ethical gate prevents us from engaging with clients whose practices do not align with our standards. 

Similarly, our sub-consultant pre-qualification assessment includes questions about unlawful discrimination, complaints upheld by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and convictions for breaching environmental legislation. 

We ensure that any organisation we work with adheres to our environmental and cultural policies, especially if they are not a relevant commercial organisation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. 

This rigorous assessment process helps us maintain ethical integrity, supporting our commitment to regenerative design by partnering only with entities that share our values and principles.