Development of the EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics

The need for an ethical code was appreciated from the early days of EFPA (then the European Federation of Professional Psychologists' Associations [EFPPA]). It was recognized that not all psychological associations across Europe had an ethical code. Furthermore, there were apparent differ­ences between the codes that did exist. As a federation. EFPPA sought to develop common, or at least comparable, practices and a Task Force on Ethics was therefore set up in 1990. Its initial aim was to develop common ethical codes for all psychologists belonging to Member Associations, to help ensure commonality across Europe, in keeping with the aims of other task forces at that time. The second ami was to assist regulation. Common codes would ensure that common standards could be expected of psychologists inde­pendent of their home country. This was becoming impor­tant as a result of the policy of freedom of movement for workers across states within the European Union (EU). Fur­thermore, alleged unethical behavior in one country would, de facto, be evaluated and any sanction implemented to a common standard across EFPA member countries.

Approval for a Task Force on Professional Ethics was given at the EFPPA General Assembly in Rome, 1988. By March 1989 Geir Nielsen (Norway) was appointed the first convener with seven other members appointed - one each from France, the German Federal Republic, Hungary, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and myself from the UK. The remit was to:

... explore the possibility of, and to work towards the realization of, common European ethical codes for professional psychologists. The Ethical Principles for Scandinavian Psychologists will, as an example of codes that are well developed and international, serve as an important point of reference for the Task Force. A report and possible proposals shall be pre­sented at the next General Assembly.

The modus operandi was that of an expert committee. This is a common approach but another which has been used is to analyze empirical evidence of ethical challenges reported by psychologists in their practice, for example by seeking out vignettes from association members; see Joyce and Rankin (2010) for a history of the American Psycholog­ical Association (АРА). The first meeting of the Task Force was January 12-13, 1990. All except the member from Germany attended and I was appointed secretary. Three issues were considered (European Federation of Professional Psychologists' Associations, 1990):

Is there a basis for a common European Ethical Code? The Committee considered examples of codes from several countries and concluded that there was much similarity of content; differences in content were not considered to pose major problems for harmonization, but the structure of codes varied greatly.

Is it useful to have such a Code? It was agreed that a Common Code would be useful in guiding and standard­izing efficient practice across Europe.

How should we work toward a Common Code? It was agreed that this might be a medium-term objective but that a single code would be too ambitious in the short term for four reasons, both conceptual and practical. First, the nature of psychological associations varied between countries. In some there were multiple organizations that might be delin­eated geographically or by practice domain. Second, there were differences in the structure, style, and specificity of the codes examined. Third, some countries were in the pro­cess of developing their codes and preferred to complete the task prior to moving to a common code. Fourth, problems were foreseen in attempting to change existing codes, partic­ularly when requiring a vote of members and when the sim­ilarity between the existing association and proposed common code were relatively limited and, if amendments were made, the common code would be undermined.

3

These tensions, of course, are inherent characteristics of governance in transnational organizations that may be addressed, as in the EU, by subsidiarity: Determining which decisions may be delegated and which must be agreed by all. The inherent problem has been seen at EU level with, for example, Ireland's voters initially rejecting the amendments to the Lisbon Treaty in 2008. This issue is also apparent in the US where individual states have been dele­gated legal responsibilities, with regard to ethical codes and regulations. For example, the АРА has a code for all its members (АРА, 2010) but individual states each have their own regulatory system. Some states, but not ali, use the АРА code. Furthermore, the notion of commonality is prob­lematic. Countries have different histories, current sociocul-tural systems, and expectations.

As a result of these discussions, at its first meeting the Task Force determined to seek to gather and analyze a full set of codes to explore generally agreed statements, variants, conflicts, and omissions. A review of current practice by the associations represented in the Task Force confirmed that there was much variation. Not all had a code. The Scandina­vian countries had a common code. The BPS had a code of conduct. There was common content but this was not con­sistent (Lindsay, 1992). There were also differences in for­mat, style among the codes and structure, for example, codes differed in the inclusion of ethical principles, and the organization of sections, with some structured to address domains of practice rather than behaviors related to ethical principles.

The Task Force decided to develop a Meta-code. This was no longer seen as a code for individual psychologists but, rather, a framework for the content of the ethical code for all EFPPA Member Associations. This would allow codes to be structured and presented in different ways provided that they addressed the common core of issues deemed essential for an ethical code for psychologists in Europe. Within this constraint, there remained room for local variations. An asso­ciation could also extend their code, perhaps with guidance that increased the range of coverage or that provided more detail. For example, in many countries psychologists work as independent practitioners whereas in the UK the tradition, albeit one which is now changing, is for psychologists to be employed by the state in the national health service or local authorities, with a minority working in private practice or urWer contract to organizations. Ethical guidance concerning the determination of appropriate fees and their collection are of more relevance in the latter context than the former where many psychologists have no need to address this at all as the service is free at the point of delivery.

4