BEYOND CHAPTER 12 · Museums and communities

How do museums and collectors make responsible choices?

Can a decision be lawful yet still damage public trust in a museum?

In this chapter

Someone offers an important artwork on condition that it stays permanently on display. Another donor offers to fund an exhibition but wants an uncomfortable passage removed. The museum appears to gain resources while potentially accepting uncosted care obligations or surrendering a judgement it should make independently.

An ethical code helps make these costs visible before a decision. It cannot prewrite every answer, but it can require reasons, management of conflicts, attention to affected people and a reviewable record. Collectors can use the same approach to examine their own influence.

Law, professional codes and institutional policy

Law determines what is prohibited, permitted or restricted; professional ethics also asks how power should be used. A legally acceptable gift may carry conditions inconsistent with an institution’s mission. Conversely, an ethically persuasive case for return does not remove the need to address title, donor restrictions or procedures applicable to a public institution.

ICOM first adopted its ethical code in 1986 and approved a revised version on 25 June 2026, organised around society, professionalism, education, collections and governance. Members undertake to follow it; for non-members it is a reference, not a universal law. Decisions also require applicable local law, professional standards and institutional policy, rather than combining different organisations’ rules into a universal permission.

Public benefit requires practical work

Museums hold objects and also the power to interpret history and distribute attention. Public benefit therefore involves reliable information, understandable exhibitions and meaningful access. Multilingual materials, clear admission and access information, and ways of experiencing art that accommodate different abilities all affect whether being open to the public is real in practice.

Access does not mean publishing everything without conditions. Sacred knowledge, human remains or images a community regards as sensitive may cause harm through greater exposure. Museums need dialogue with relevant communities about display, interpretation and access. This does not give one voice control of research; it recognises who is affected, who holds knowledge, and which decisions require negotiation.

Acquisition brings continuing obligations

A donated work can still require specialised storage, conservation, insurance and research. Before acceptance, ask whether it fits collecting priorities, whether the donor has authority to transfer it, and whether continuing care and appropriate access are feasible. More objects do not automatically improve public service; when resources are scarce, new acquisitions may displace care for existing holdings.

Provenance research connects the object with records of ownership, purchases and gifts, catalogues, inventories and relevant import or export documents. ICOM’s accessioning standards also draw attention to old inventory numbers and marks. No match in a stolen-object database establishes only that the search found no matching record; it neither fills provenance gaps nor proves undisputed title.

Deaccessioning is more than a sale

Deaccessioning formally removes an object from the collection through applicable law and policy; disposition determines its subsequent destination, such as transfer, return or sale. These are separate stages. First ask whether the object’s role in the museum should change, then consider the appropriate route. Otherwise, a valuable price can become the reason for inventing a justification after the fact.

ICOM’s 2026 C.6 calls for responsible deaccessioning policy addressing significance, legal standing, possible transfer to another museum and public trust; sale proceeds should benefit the collection alone. This does not authorise every institution to sell under identical rules. Its governing body must also examine law, donor conditions, conflicts, documentation and more specific requirements on the use of funds.

Return requests require their own inquiry

Accession does not prove that an object’s acquisition history was fully understood. War, colonialism, looting, unlawful export or coerced transfer can prompt renewed investigation. A return request calls for establishing the claimant, object, available evidence and gaps, so research and dialogue can continue. “We care for it well” does not answer the historical question.

The 2026 ICOM code calls for active responses to return and restitution requests in accordance with applicable law. Museums, governments, individuals and source communities may have different roles in a case. Explain ethical reasons, legal rights and transfer arrangements separately. Return should not be treated as the same decision as a sale to raise money: it concerns rights, relationships and historical responsibilities.

Support needs visible boundaries

Support can enable research or exhibitions that would otherwise be impossible, but the amount does not answer every question. Examine the source, conditions, effects on audiences and workers, and whether the museum retains authority over content. ICOM’s fundraising standards emphasise written policies and agreements and the integrity of programmes. Prior arrangements are easier to trust than improvised explanations after controversy.

A conflict can arise well before bribery. Suppose a trustee owns many works by an artist and helps decide whether to stage that artist’s retrospective: public duties and private interests may overlap. Disclosure is the beginning. Policy should determine any recusal from discussion or voting, independent assessment and documentation. Disclosing a relationship does not automatically neutralise it.

Collecting ethics begins with treatment of people

The Code of Conduct for Contemporary Art Collectors is a voluntary collector-led initiative; its published 2022 version relies on peer accountability rather than government enforcement. It addresses fair and prompt payment, artistic autonomy, misuse of power, and conflicts between institutional governance and private collecting. Endorsement demonstrates participation, not by itself actual conduct or market-wide change.

Apply the principles to a small situation: a collector asks an artist to write a talk, attend a private dinner and help install works. These tasks take time; “exposure” does not replace payment. Buying an artwork does not purchase unlimited services. In negotiation, ask who bears a discount and whether unequal power is being used coercively. An initiative’s higher standard does not establish that all bargaining is unlawful.

Turn a code into a reviewable decision

An ethical discussion can begin with a one-page decision record: known facts and uncertainties, affected people, applicable law and policy, competing responsibilities, and feasible options. For a gift requiring permanent display, options may include a fixed-term loan, amended display conditions or another institution better placed to receive it. Each option carries continuing obligations to assess.

Then establish who decides, who should recuse, whom to consult and when to review. Documentation helps future colleagues understand the reasons, as well as protecting the institution. There should be a route to revision when new evidence changes the assessment. Ethical practice produces an accountable use of power that can be explained, challenged and improved.

Your turn to investigate

Which clue would you check first?

Fictional exercise: a trustee offers a valuable work but demands immediate accession and permanent display. Provenance has gaps, and the trustee would vote on acceptance. What is the best next step?

Choose a clue to see what it can tell you.

READING COMPANION

A few useful terms

Professional ethics: Principles for the responsible use of professional knowledge and power; connected with, but not identical to, applicable law.
Public trust: Confidence that an institution manages works, knowledge and resources for public purposes; the term here does not imply an identical legal trust structure everywhere.
Due diligence: Investigation appropriate to the circumstances into provenance, rights, documentation and counterparties, with evidence and unresolved concerns recorded.
Accessioning: The formal acceptance of an object into a collection under institutional procedures, with collection and inventory records.
Deaccessioning: The formal removal of an object from a collection under law and policy, distinct from its subsequent sale, transfer or return.
Disposition: The process of arranging an object’s destination after deaccessioning, potentially through transfer, sale or return, subject to applicable conditions.
Conflict of interest: A situation in which private interests may affect, or appear to affect, public or professional duties and require disclosure and management.
Recusal: Withdrawing from discussion or voting on a particular decision because of a relevant interest, to the extent required by applicable procedures.
Peer accountability: Participants maintaining standards through commitments, mutual scrutiny and responses to concerns, rather than government enforcement.

Explore primary and secondary markets

YOUR TURN

What information could lead you to recommend delaying a donation that would make a museum famous?

Consider another way to think about it

Unclear provenance or transfer authority, inadequate care resources, restrictive display conditions or decision-makers’ private interests can all call for further investigation. A delay does not prejudge the donor; it lets the institution establish whether it can fulfil its public responsibilities before committing.

TAKE THIS THOUGHT WITH YOU

Ethical codes extend “may we do this?” into “to whom are we responsible, and how will we explain it?” Assess the opportunities of works, funding and prestige alongside care, independent judgement and public trust.

Reading notes & references

Adapted by Art Value Lab from the complete supplied bilingual Codes of Ethics for Museums and Collectors text. ICOM statements were checked against the code adopted on 25 June 2026, with practical guidance from its 2019 deaccessioning and 2020 accessioning and fundraising documents. Clause numbers in older documents are not treated as 2026 numbering. Rules remain specific to jurisdictions, institutions and professional bodies. Scenarios are fictional.

Connect the ideas

Continue into people, works and research.