ICOM Code of Ethics 2026: What Changed for Museums?

The 2026 ICOM Code of Ethics changes the scale of museum ethics. Collections care, lawful acquisition, accurate interpretation, and professional conduct remain central, but the revised text places them inside a wider institutional duty that reaches boards, directors, employees, volunteers, contractors, digital systems, community partnerships, and working conditions. The result is not merely a reordered rulebook. It changes who is responsible, whose knowledge must shape decisions, and which museum activities require an ethical review.

A New Code After More Than Two Decades

ICOM adopted its first professional ethics code in 1986, updated it in 2001, and fully revised and retitled it in 2004. That 2004 edition remained the main international reference for museum conduct for more than two decades. The 2026 rewrite followed several rounds of member consultation and was developed by the ICOM Standing Committee on Ethics (ETHCOM).

The timing matters. ICOM approved a new museum definition in 2022 that describes museums as accessible, inclusive institutions working with the participation of communities while fostering diversity and sustainability. The 2026 Code turns much of that language into duties connected to governance, collections, education, technology, and public service. ^[Ref-5]

From Eight Organizing Sections to Five Institutional Duties

The 2004 edition arranged museum ethics under eight broad sections. The 2026 edition condenses that architecture into five principles, each supported by more detailed statements. Fewer headings do not mean fewer obligations. Several older duties have been retained, expanded, and redistributed across the new structure. ^[Ref-4]

Society Moves to the Front of Museum Ethics

The first principle is now Society. This placement gives public responsibility a governing role rather than treating social benefit as the eventual result of good collections work. Museums are expected to conserve and share heritage, support participation in cultural life, create room for dialogue, remove barriers, address exclusion, respect sensitive heritage, and pursue sustainability.

Access is described more broadly than physical entry. The Code names virtual, linguistic, socio-cultural, and economic obstacles alongside physical barriers. That wording reaches ticket policies, website usability, language access, digital catalogs, interpretive formats, and the availability of non-confidential collection records. A museum may have an accessible entrance and still create other forms of exclusion.

Sustainability also receives a four-part meaning: social, environmental, cultural, and financial. Energy use and climate effects are part of the duty, but they are not the whole duty. Staff welfare, cultural continuity, collection survival, institutional solvency, and the effect of museum decisions on people are connected within the same standard.

Community Participation Becomes Agency, Consent, and Paid Contribution

The 2004 Code already required museums to respect communities of origin and to cooperate on knowledge, collections, returns, and contemporary cultural material. The 2026 text goes further by describing community members as participants in museum decisions rather than outside parties who are merely consulted after plans have formed.

• Decision-making: Communities, including Indigenous Peoples, should be involved in decisions about their heritage and creative expressions.
• Free, prior, and informed consent: Museums should seek consent before using or recording relevant traditional knowledge, cultural expression, and Indigenous heritage.
• Recognition: Contributions should be acknowledged rather than absorbed anonymously into institutional research or interpretation.
• Equitable compensation: Knowledge and labor supplied by community members should not automatically be treated as unpaid material for museum use.
• Shared authority: Boards are asked to support co-creation and continuing collaboration where appropriate, and to formalize those commitments in policy.

This does not erase curatorial, conservation, or legal responsibilities. It changes how expertise is assembled. Scientific and academic evidence remain part of decision-making, while traditional, cultural, and spiritual knowledge may also be relevant to provenance, display, research, care, access, and return.

Digital Heritage Is Now a Collection Responsibility

The 2026 Code repeatedly names digital heritage alongside tangible and intangible heritage. Digital material is therefore not confined to publicity, social media, or a museum website. Born-digital records, digitized collections, databases, reproductions, online exhibitions, research files, and culturally restricted digital content can all require ethical care.

Collection documentation must be stored securely and supported by recovery systems that reduce the risk of data loss. Except where information is confidential or sensitive, records should be available to the public onsite and online. Digital copies must also be clearly identified so that a reproduction cannot be mistaken for an original object.

Technology Must Be Assessed for Benefit and Harm

Museum leaders are assigned oversight of digital technology. The review should consider inaccurate information, environmental cost, intellectual property, Indigenous rights, data sovereignty, collection integrity, user safety, and the possibility of physical or digital harm. Technology is not treated as ethically neutral simply because it improves speed or access.

The Code does not create a separate set of artificial intelligence rules. Even so, its technology duties can be applied to machine-generated labels, automated translation, visitor profiling, synthetic reconstructions, facial analysis, and collection-search tools. That is an operational reading of the text, not an explicit ICOM ban or endorsement of a particular AI system.

Sensitive Heritage Rules Extend to Online Display

The earlier Code addressed respectful care and display of human remains and sacred material. The revised version retains those duties while giving more attention to collaboration, continuing cultural or spiritual importance, restricted use, online access, and repatriation.

• Human remains: Decisions should be made with descendants or source communities when they are known, and restricted use or repatriation should be considered where continuing cultural or spiritual importance exists.
• Sacred and culturally sensitive material: Museums should establish clear procedures for care, use, display, and access rather than relying on ad hoc decisions.
• Online access: Requests to restrict access or remove material from online display should receive prompt, respectful, and transparent consideration.
• Traditional knowledge: Recording and holding such knowledge should follow consent, confidentiality, intellectual property, and collaborative processes.

A high-resolution image published online can circulate far beyond the conditions of a physical gallery. For that reason, a decision to remove an object from display does not settle the status of its catalog image, archived video, educational download, or searchable database record. Museums need separate access levels and documented review procedures.

Provenance and Return Become Proactive Work

The 2004 Code already required due diligence before acquisition, encouraged dialogue about return, and called for prompt cooperation when cultural property had been transferred contrary to applicable conventions. The 2026 text keeps those duties but adds a stronger expectation that museums examine collections already in their custody.

Museums are now told to conduct provenance research across all their collections. When research uncovers new ownership information, illegal acquisition, or another problematic history, the museum should voluntarily enter discussions about the object’s future. A formal claim is no longer the only event that should trigger action.

Return discussions may involve states, individuals, Indigenous groups, communities, museums, or heritage institutions. The evidence base may include scientific and historical documentation as well as traditional or spiritual knowledge. When return is agreed, the process should be collaborative and should protect the object during transfer.

What the Restitution Language Does Not Say

The Code does not order the automatic return of every disputed object. It asks for research, open communication, lawful handling, voluntary engagement where problems are found, and safe return when a decision has been reached. Each case still depends on its evidence, legal setting, cultural context, and the parties involved.

The acquisition rule for occupied territories is also stated directly: museums should refrain from acquiring objects from such territories. An emergency exception permits a museum to hold endangered material temporarily, but that protective arrangement should be agreed with the state, institution, or individual seeking shelter for it.

Museum Employment Enters the Ethical Standard

One of the clearest changes concerns the workplace. The revised Code does not treat ethics solely as a list of duties imposed on individual professionals. It also asks leaders and governing bodies to create conditions in which ethical work is possible.

• Equitable pay: Museum leadership should provide fair compensation rather than separating professional standards from the material conditions of employment.
• Physical, mental, and emotional well-being: Safety now includes more than accident prevention and collection security.
• Harassment and discrimination: Institutions should maintain policies and reporting mechanisms that protect staff, volunteers, visitors, and community members.
• Emergency planning: Plans should protect workers and volunteers during armed conflict, environmental disaster, and health emergencies.
• Precarious employment: Governing bodies are told to prevent insecure working conditions and maintain a fair and respectful workplace.
• Professional objection: Museum workers may raise concerns when irregularities or damaging practices occur, provided objections are expressed through appropriate channels.

These duties extend beyond permanent curatorial staff. The Code repeatedly refers to staff, volunteers, contractors, collaborators, and everyone working in or with museums. A museum cannot claim a high ethical standard for collections while ignoring how the people responsible for those collections are treated.

Governance Is No Longer Scattered Through the Document

The creation of a separate Governance principle places boards and oversight bodies inside the ethical system. Their role is not limited to approving budgets or appointing a director. They are responsible for the museum’s legal identity, resources, policies, autonomy, leadership quality, representation, working conditions, and long-term operation.

This makes donor and sponsor relationships an ethical governance matter. A sponsor may support an exhibition, but the museum should retain control of factual content and interpretation. A board may pursue revenue, but it should not treat the collection as a general financial asset or allow commercial demands to override care, access, and public trust.

Education Is Recast as Knowledge-Sharing and Reflection

The Education principle reaches beyond tours, school programs, and gallery labels. It covers exhibitions, publications, cultural events, onsite and offsite activity, and online learning. Museums should define educational goals, serve varied audiences, support multilingual and intercultural dialogue, and integrate audience feedback into program development.

Accuracy remains non-negotiable. Information should be credible, reliable, and grounded in relevant academic and scientific disciplines, traditional knowledge, or belief systems. This does not mean every claim carries equal evidentiary weight. It means a museum must identify the kind of knowledge it is presenting, represent it honestly, and avoid using institutional authority to turn uncertainty into fact.

The Code also names reparative practice. Museums should acknowledge and help repair past injustices, support communities seeking to reconnect with their heritage, and use discussions about restitution or return as opportunities for learning. Reparative work can therefore include revised catalog language, shared interpretation, access to archives, community-led research, and changes to display—not only the transfer of legal title.

Public Trust Rules That Remain in Place

The rewrite should not be read as a rejection of the 2004 Code. Many long-standing museum duties remain visible, sometimes with more detail or a new institutional owner.

• Collections remain a public trust: They are not ordinary assets that can be sold to solve unrelated financial problems.
• Acquisition still requires due diligence: Museums must establish lawful ownership and investigate origin, transfer, fieldwork, and export history.
• Deaccessioning remains controlled: Legal standing, cultural and scientific value, transfer to another museum, and possible loss of public trust must be considered.
• Sale proceeds remain restricted: Money received from deaccessioned objects should benefit the collection.
• Information must be accurate: Exhibitions, publications, educational activity, and digital records should not misrepresent evidence.
• Confidential information must be protected: Security details, personal data, financial information, and donor records require appropriate controls.
• Illicit trafficking remains prohibited: Museum workers should not support unlawful trade and should cooperate with relevant authorities.
• Conflicts of interest must be disclosed: Private collecting, gifts, favors, invitations, and commercial relationships require public policy and individual restraint.

The First Policies Museums Should Audit

The revised Code requires more than a staff briefing. Museums need to compare existing policy, actual practice, and available resources. The first review should follow responsibility rather than department names alone.

1. Board and legal documents: Confirm that mission, nonprofit status, governance structure, authority, conflict rules, and public policies are current and accessible.
2. Collections policy: Add digital heritage, sensitive material, human remains, provenance research across existing holdings, emergency custody, restitution, return, databases, and digital copies where these subjects are absent.
3. Community agreements: Define consent, attribution, compensation, confidentiality, data control, access restrictions, and the role of community participants in decisions.
4. Technology review: Record who approves digital tools, how accuracy is tested, which data may be processed, how environmental and user effects are considered, and how errors can be corrected.
5. Employment protections: Examine pay, contract security, harassment reporting, volunteer treatment, emergency plans, mental health support, and routes for professional objection.
6. Education and publication standards: Review source checking, accessible formats, online display, sensitive content, audience feedback, and the representation of different knowledge systems.
7. Funding and autonomy: Ensure donor, sponsor, commercial, and political relationships cannot dictate collection decisions or control museum content.

Five Decisions That Reveal Whether Practice Has Changed

Policy language becomes meaningful when it changes a real decision. The following situations show where the 2026 duties are likely to be tested.

An Object Has an Incomplete Colonial-Era Ownership Record

The museum should not wait passively for a claim. It should document uncertainty, continue provenance research, identify relevant communities or institutions, and be prepared to discuss the object’s future if the record becomes problematic.

A Sponsor Objects to the Exhibition Text

Funding does not entitle a sponsor to control interpretation. Museum leadership and the board should protect factual accuracy, the institution’s mission, and editorial independence.

A Community Requests Removal of a Sacred Image Online

The request should enter a documented process that considers cultural protocol, consent, legal obligations, educational use, collection care, and different levels of research or public access. Leaving the image online by default is not a neutral choice.

An AI Tool Produces Object Descriptions

The museum should verify accuracy, disclose responsibility, protect restricted data, review intellectual property and cultural rights, and provide a correction route. Human oversight remains necessary because publication under a museum’s name carries institutional authority.

Financial Pressure Leads to Reliance on Insecure Labor

Financial stability does not remove duties toward staff and volunteers. The board must consider whether low pay, unstable contracts, or unsafe workloads undermine the museum’s ethical and professional obligations.

Limits of the 2026 Code

• It does not replace law: Museums remain subject to domestic legislation, treaties, court decisions, ownership rules, employment law, privacy law, and other binding obligations.
• It does not impose one procedure on every institution: Resources, legal systems, collection types, and community relationships differ, so implementation will vary.
• It does not replace local policy: A principle such as “cause no harm” still needs approval routes, documentation, risk criteria, and staff responsibility.
• It does not order universal automatic restitution: Research, dialogue, lawful process, and collaborative return are required, but outcomes depend on the case.
• It does not contain a stand-alone AI code: AI-related decisions fall under the broader duties for technology, accuracy, intellectual property, data sovereignty, education, collections, and governance.
• It does not remove professional judgment: Ethical dilemmas still require evidence, consultation, recorded reasoning, and a decision that can be explained.

The Operational Measure After 2026

A museum can no longer measure ethical performance only by the security of its stores, the legality of acquisitions, or the accuracy of labels. It must also examine who participates in decisions, how staff are treated, how digital systems affect people and collections, whether governance protects independence, and whether provenance concerns are investigated before an external claim forces action.

The main change is institutional ownership of ethics. The revised Code places responsibility across the entire museum—from collection databases and education teams to executive leadership and the governing board.