Code of Ethics & Editorial Standards

The IAOIJ was founded on a simple conviction: that investigative journalism is a public good, and that it earns its licence to hold power to account only by holding itself to the highest standards.

This Code sets out the principles every member agrees to uphold — when they join the Association, and each time they take part in an IAOIJ collaboration. It is not a checklist to be gamed but a statement of the values that make our work trustworthy: truth, independence, fairness, and care for the people and sources whose lives our reporting touches. Where a difficult judgement arises, members are expected to reason from these principles, consult their editors, and be able to justify the decision they reach.

The Code was adopted at the Association's founding in 2011 and most recently revised in 2026. It applies to all 2,600+ members in 94 countries, to freelancers reporting under the IAOIJ banner, and to every cross-border project the Association convenes. It sits alongside — and never below — the law and the codes of members' own newsrooms; where standards differ, the higher standard applies.

1 · Truth & accuracy

Members are committed to establishing the truth as fully as the available evidence allows, and to reporting it accurately. We do not knowingly publish false or misleading information. Every material claim must rest on evidence a reasonable editor would accept — documents, data, first-hand testimony or genuine expertise — and, wherever possible, be corroborated by more than one independent source.

Accuracy is a discipline, not an aspiration. We distinguish clearly between fact, inference and comment; we do not dress speculation as established fact; and we give readers enough context to weigh what we report. Where something cannot be confirmed, we say so plainly rather than imply a certainty we do not have.

2 · Independence & conflicts of interest

Our first loyalty is to the public. Members report without fear or favour and resist every attempt — commercial, political, personal or institutional — to shape coverage. We do not let advertisers, funders, owners, sources or the subjects of our reporting dictate what we investigate or how we tell it.

Members disclose to their editors any financial, personal or political interest a reasonable reader might think could affect their judgement, and step aside where a conflict cannot be managed. IAOIJ funding is never contingent on findings; no grant, partnership or sponsorship buys influence over editorial content; and the Association publishes its major funders so that its independence can be checked.

3 · The public interest test

Investigative work often intrudes on privacy, breaches confidences or exposes what the powerful would prefer to hide. Such intrusion is justified only when it serves a genuine public interest — exposing crime or serious wrongdoing, protecting public health and safety, revealing the misuse of power or public money, or correcting a significant false impression left by others.

"Of interest to the public" is not the same as "in the public interest." Before publishing material that would otherwise be private or confidential, members weigh the public benefit against the harm, satisfy themselves the information could not reasonably be obtained by less intrusive means, and stand ready to justify the decision to their editors and, if challenged, in public.

4 · Fairness & right of reply

Anyone shown in a critical light is entitled to a fair and timely opportunity to respond before publication. We put detailed allegations to those concerned in writing, allow a reasonable period to reply in proportion to the story's complexity and urgency, and represent their response accurately and prominently — not buried, clipped or paraphrased to their disadvantage.

Fairness does not end at publication. We do not distort a subject's words or images, quote out of context, or use selective editing to leave a false impression. Where a subject declines to comment or does not respond in time, we say so — without implying that silence is an admission of guilt.

5 · Source protection & confidentiality

A promise of confidentiality is absolute. Members protect the identity of confidential sources at all costs and honour undertakings of anonymity even under legal, financial or physical pressure. We consider the risk to a source before, during and after publication, and we never make a promise we cannot keep.

Protection is technical as well as ethical. We minimise the digital traces that could expose a source, prefer encrypted and metadata-resistant channels, store sensitive material securely, and share a confidential source's identity with the smallest possible number of colleagues on a need-to-know basis. Reporters unsure how to protect a source should consult the IAOIJ security team before making contact.

6 · Consent, privacy & vulnerable people

We respect private life and take the dignity of the people in our stories seriously. Intrusion into grief, shock, illness or family life must be justified by the public interest and handled with care. We seek informed consent when reporting on private individuals who are not themselves the subject of wrongdoing, and we take particular care with children, victims of crime, trauma survivors and others who may not grasp the consequences of speaking to us.

Consent means people understand who we are, what we are reporting, and how their words or image may be used. We do not exploit a person's inexperience, distress or powerlessness, and we are willing to withhold an identifying detail — a name, a face, a location — where naming would cause disproportionate harm and add little to public understanding.

7 · Responsible use of leaked data

Leaks and large datasets are central to modern investigation, but possessing a document is not a licence to publish it. Members verify the authenticity of leaked material, satisfy themselves that obtaining and reporting it serves the public interest, and report on what it reveals rather than simply dumping it. We do not publish personal data — medical records, private financial details, identifying information about uninvolved third parties — merely because it happens to sit in a dataset.

We treat leaked material as sensitive: securing it, limiting access, and redacting or withholding anything that would endanger innocent people without a corresponding public benefit. Where a source obtained data unlawfully, our decision to report turns on the public interest in the information, not on how it reached us — but we are transparent with our editors, and where appropriate with readers, about its provenance and its limits.

8 · Undercover reporting & deception

Honesty is the default. Members identify themselves as journalists and gather information openly. Subterfuge — a concealed identity, hidden recording or misrepresentation — is a last resort, justified only when the information sought is of clear and significant public interest and cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means.

Any use of deception must be proportionate, agreed in advance with a senior editor, documented, and confined to what is necessary. We do not entrap people into wrongdoing they would not otherwise have committed, and we are prepared to explain to readers why deception was used and what safeguards were in place.

9 · Corrections & accountability

We hold others to account and accept the same standard for ourselves. Significant errors are corrected promptly, clearly and with appropriate prominence — never quietly amended in the hope no one notices. A correction states what was wrong and sets out what is right; it is not a grudging hedge.

Members and partner newsrooms keep a visible route for complaints and answer them in good faith. We maintain a transparent record of corrections and treat a readiness to be corrected as a strength of the work, not an embarrassment to be managed.

10 · Safety & duty of care

No story is worth a life. The safety of reporters, fixers, translators, sources and the communities we report on comes before any deadline or scoop. Members assess the physical, digital, legal and psychological risks of an assignment before they begin, plan accordingly, and may decline or withdraw from work they judge unsafe without penalty.

Duty of care extends to the whole team — including freelancers and local collaborators, who often carry the greatest risk for the least protection. IAOIJ collaborations require a risk assessment and a safety plan for high-risk reporting, and every member can call on the Association's 24/7 rapid-response line, relocation support and trauma-aware resources.

11 · Plagiarism & attribution

Members present only their own work as their own. Plagiarism — passing off another's reporting, writing, data or images as original — is a serious breach. We credit the newsrooms, reporters and researchers whose work we build on, and we acknowledge collaborators and prior reporting fairly and generously.

Fabrication is equally grave: we do not invent quotes, present composite characters as real people, or describe scenes that did not happen. Material drawn from archives, wire services, databases or other outlets is clearly attributed.

12 · Financial integrity & no payment for stories

We do not pay sources for information or interviews. Payment corrupts testimony and rewards those who would sell a story rather than tell the truth. Limited, transparent reimbursement of a source's reasonable, documented expenses may occasionally be appropriate, but only with an editor's agreement — and we never pay criminals or wrongdoers to profit from their conduct.

Members do not accept gifts, hospitality, travel or favours that could compromise, or appear to compromise, their independence. Grant funds are used only for the reporting they were awarded for and are accounted for transparently. The Association publishes its major funders and its annual accounts.

Enforcement & complaints

The Code is overseen by the IAOIJ Ethics Committee — a standing body of senior members together with an independent external member, appointed by the Board and operating at arm's length from the Association's staff and its funders. Anyone, member or not, may raise a concern about the conduct of a member or an IAOIJ collaboration.

Complaints should be made in writing through our contact page, marked for the attention of the Ethics Committee, or in confidence to secretariat@iaoij.com. The Committee acknowledges every complaint, assesses whether it falls within its remit, and — where a matter proceeds — gives the member concerned a fair opportunity to respond. Its findings are reasoned and recorded.

Where a breach is upheld, sanctions are proportionate to its seriousness. They range from private guidance and a formal warning, through a requirement to publish a correction or apology and the suspension of membership and IAOIJ support, to — for the gravest or repeated breaches — expulsion from the Association. Serious findings may be reported to the member's own newsroom and, where the public interest requires it, published.

Editorial standards for IAOIJ collaborations

Cross-border projects convened by the IAOIJ follow a shared editorial protocol so that every partner can stand behind the result. Each significant factual claim is independently verified and documented in a shared evidence trail, and central findings are fact-checked by an editor who did not report them.

Before publication, sensitive stories undergo pre-publication legal review in each relevant jurisdiction, and every subject of criticism receives a right of reply coordinated across the whole collaboration. Partners agree an embargo and publish simultaneously, so that no participant is exposed by breaking first and the story lands with the greatest possible public impact. Data and methodology are documented so the work can be defended and, where responsible, shared with readers.

Adopted 2011 · last revised 2026 · International Association of Investigative Journalism. This Code is reviewed periodically by the Ethics Committee and approved by the Board.