This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
These worked examples show how the ethical review requirements in this Knowledge Base apply in market research settings. Each is a hypothetical, generic scenario; it does not describe a real Iris Ethics application.
Case study: Consumer tracking study
Description: A market research agency proposes a six-month online tracking study following 500 participants through purchase journeys, including passive monitoring of online browsing behaviour with participant consent.
Key considerations: The passive monitoring component raises data management and privacy considerations under NS Chapter 3.1, Element 4. Participants must be told in plain language exactly what data is collected passively and how it will be used (NS 2.2.6). The data management plan must address security, access control, retention, and destruction of the passively collected data, and should reduce identifiability where the research purpose allows (NS 3.1.40). See Privacy and identifiability and Collection and storage.
Review pathway: Lower risk review is appropriate unless the browsing data reveals sensitive health, financial, or other information capable of causing harm if disclosed, in which case full HREC review applies. See Lower risk vs full HREC review.
Case study: Employee satisfaction survey commissioned by an employer
Description: An employer commissions a market research agency to conduct an annual employee satisfaction survey. Participation is described as voluntary, but the employer receives individual-level data for management purposes.
Key considerations: This design sits squarely within NS Chapter 4.4, which applies to research involving people in dependent or unequal relationships, including employers and employees (NS 4.4.1–4.4.8). Employees may not feel free to decline (NS 2.2.9 prohibits coercion or pressure in deciding whether to participate), and individual-level data returned to the employer removes practical anonymity, creating re-identification risk. Providing individual-level data to the commissioning employer is generally not defensible as designed; findings should be reported to the employer only in de-identified, aggregated form, with minimum cell-size thresholds applied to disaggregated results. See People in dependent relationships (NS 4.4) and Avoiding coercion.
Review pathway: Full HREC review, given the dependent relationship and the identifiability of the data as designed. Significant design modification (aggregation, independent administration) is likely to be required before approval, or a move to lower risk review once these safeguards are in place.
Case study: Panel-recruited omnibus survey and incentive disclosure
Description: A market research firm proposes a 15-minute online omnibus survey of 1,500 adults on grocery shopping habits, with sample supplied by a third-party panel provider. The applicant does not know the exact incentive paid to individual panel members, as this is set by the provider under a commercial arrangement.
Key considerations: The National Statement requires that any payments to participants be disclosed to them (NS 2.2.6(j)) and that payment disproportionate to the time involved, or any inducement likely to encourage risk-taking, is unacceptable (NS 2.2.10–2.2.11). Reviewers must also consider whether any incentive could pressure individuals to consent (NS 3.1.21). Where the applicant cannot state a dollar figure because it is commercially confidential, this is addressed, not by omission, but by confirming the panel provider's ISO 20252 certification (the market, opinion, and social research standard) and describing the incentive mechanism (for example, a points-based rewards scheme). For projects involving participants who may be more susceptible to the influence of payment, applicants should instead specify the incentive directly in the panel contract and document a proportionality assessment.
Review pathway: Lower risk review, provided the incentive mechanism and ISO 20252 certification are described in the application. See Payments and incentives.
Related resources
This page was last updated on 16 September 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article makes reference to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025. It is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.