ICOM's New Ethics Code Puts AI, Colonialism, and Climate at the Centre of Museum Practice

The International Council of Museums adopted a revised code of ethics at the end of June, ending a six-year drafting process and resetting the professional baseline for roughly 60,000 institutions worldwide. The text, approved at ICOM's 41st Ordinary General Assembly in Paris, takes explicit aim at artificial intelligence, the legacy of colonialism in museum collections, and the climate footprint of an industry that moves objects, builds wings, and flies curators across continents.

The code is not a treaty. It carries no enforcement mechanism and no sanction for non-compliance. But it is the closest thing the global museum field has to a shared professional constitution, and what it chooses to name — and what it chooses to leave vague — tends to ripple outward into acquisition policies, loan agreements, and exhibition copy within a few seasons.

What the new code actually says

Three subjects dominate the revisions. The first is artificial intelligence: the code calls on museums to disclose when AI tools are used to generate labels, reconstruct damaged objects, or analyse visitor behaviour, and to retain human oversight over curatorial decisions. The second is restitution. The text urges institutions to examine provenance records for objects acquired under colonial conditions and to engage in good-faith dialogue with source communities — language softer than the outright presumption of return that activist groups had pushed for during consultations, but firmer than the 2017 version, which left the question largely to national law.

The third is climate. Museums are encouraged to measure the carbon cost of travelling exhibitions, to favour loans over purchases where possible, and to factor environmental impact into storage and display decisions. The framing treats climate not as a programming theme but as an operational obligation, comparable to fire safety or conservation standards.

The code also tightens rules around deaccessioning, requires clearer conflict-of-interest disclosures for trustees and donors, and for the first time addresses the labour conditions of freelance curators and preparators — a category that expanded sharply during the post-pandemic contraction of permanent staff.

A long road from Kyoto

The revision is the most consequential since the 2017 code, which itself replaced the 1986 version adopted in Buenos Aires. The 2017 process nearly split the organisation: a redrafted definition of what counts as a museum — eventually settled on a reference to "professional and ethical practices" — was rejected at the 2016 Milan general assembly, forcing a second vote the following year.

The 2026 process was deliberately slower. Working groups ran from 2020 onward, paused during the pandemic, and resumed with regional consultations in Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific that ICOM's leadership has flagged as more substantive than previous rounds. The Paris vote succeeded on the first attempt — a procedural note worth recording, given the field's recent history of near-splits over definitional questions.

The counter-narrative

Not everyone is satisfied. European institutions have largely welcomed the new language on AI and climate but have pushed back on the restitution provisions, arguing that the code oversteps by signalling a presumption in favour of return. Several major US museums, already navigating a tightening domestic legal environment around Native American remains and the 2023 updated NAGPRA guidance, have said privately that the ICOM text complicates bilateral negotiations by introducing a multilateral norm.

African and Latin American museum associations, by contrast, have argued the opposite: that the language is still too cautious, that it preserves the discretion of holding institutions, and that it does little for objects whose provenance is genuinely unknown rather than merely undocumented. The split is structural. A code that attempts to mediate between source-country demands and holding-institution caution will, almost by construction, satisfy neither fully.

What it changes in practice

The operational test will come in the next eighteen months. Watch three things. First, whether major Western museums begin adding AI-disclosure lines to wall labels and catalogue entries — a small textual change that would signal real uptake. Second, whether the ICOM disputes panel, which has been largely dormant, is reactivated to handle restitution claims. Third, whether the climate language produces measurable changes in touring-exhibition logistics, which are currently dominated by a small number of European and North American lenders.

The code is not self-executing. Its authority rests on the willingness of directors, trustees, and national committees to translate it into procurement contracts, exhibition policies, and staff handbooks. On paper, the field has just redrawn its ethical perimeter. In the loading bays and conservation studios, that redrawing is still to come.

This publication has framed the ICOM revision as a professional-governance story rather than a culture-war one; the contested ground sits in implementation, not in the text.