Complaint OEN365955

Date created
Dec 03, 2018
Date completed
Feb 14, 2020
Region Complainant
Region Defendant

Article 7 Transparency

  • Researchers must design research to the specification and quality agreed with the client and in accordance with Article 9(a).
  • Researchers must ensure that findings and any interpretation of them are clearly and adequately supported by data.
  • Researchers must on request allow clients to arrange for independent checks on the quality of data collection and data preparation.
  • Researchers must provide clients with sufficient technical information about the research to enable them to assess the validity of the results and any conclusions drawn.
  • When reporting on the results of research, researchers must make a clear distinction between the findings, the researchers’ interpretation of those findings and any conclusions drawn or recommendations made.

Article 9 Professional responsibility

  • Researchers must be honest, truthful and objective and ensure that their research is carried out in accordance with appropriate scientific research principles, methods and techniques.
  • Researchers must always behave ethically and must not do anything that might unjustifiably damage the reputation of research or lead to a loss of public confidence in it.
  • Researchers must be straightforward and honest in all of their professional and business dealings.
  • Researchers must not unjustifiably criticise other researchers.
  • Researchers must not make false or otherwise misleading statements about their skills, experience or activities, or about those of their organisation.
  • Researchers must conform to the generally accepted principles of fair competition.

Public Resolution

Feb 14, 2020

A member of public complained about an ESOMAR member violating the Code, as he believed the respondents were not recruited in line with the ICC/ESOMAR International Code.

The responder let us know that the project was finished 7 years ago and they were very surprised this complaint came up. They were able to explain that the client was very happy with the manner in which the respondents were selected. Furthermore, given the deep involvement of the client in the recruitment and vetting of all members recruited, this was one of their most transparently executed projects.

The complainant was asked for some more information on how he was involved and what caused him to complain. The complainant did not provide further detail.

The responder informed us that the complainant might have been on their online research panel and was recently removed for quality control reasons.

The Disciplinary subCommittee to the Professional Standards Committee agreed that there should be a time limit for submitting complaints. Complaints have to be filed within 3 years of the alleged breach occurring. In addition the Disciplinary subCommittee agreed that the responder was not found to have violated the ICC/ESOMAR Code.