This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Ethical obligations under the National Statement do not stop at the Australian border. Chapter 4.6 governs research and evaluation conducted in other countries, and it applies in full to Australian researchers and evaluators working overseas, regardless of the ethical or regulatory standards of the host country (NS 4.6.1). Chapter 4.6 does not replace the core principles set out elsewhere in the National Statement; it layers additional, context-specific obligations on top of them.
The floor, not the ceiling
The design and conduct of overseas research must recognise local cultural values and expectations, particularly what researchers and participants expect from one another, but this recognition must not result in participants receiving less respect and protection than the National Statement requires (NS 4.6.2). Australian standards are the floor; local values can inform how that floor is met, but never justify falling below it. A researcher working in a setting where community leaders traditionally consent on behalf of individuals cannot simply defer to that practice if it overrides individual autonomy; both obligations need to be honoured together.
Respect, beneficence, and community knowledge
Researchers must demonstrate respect through the design, conduct, and monitoring of overseas work, in line with NS 1.10 to 1.13, by taking into account local beliefs and practices around recruitment, consent, and remuneration, and through ongoing consultation and engagement with local participants and communities (NS 4.6.3). The distribution of benefits, risks, and burdens must be equitable and acceptable by local standards, not only by the standards of the commissioning organisation (NS 4.6.4).
Researchers should be familiar with the communities in which they plan to work, able to demonstrate how they will engage with potential participants, and able to assess benefits, risks, and burdens for those participants and communities. They must also take account of political, social, and cultural factors that could jeopardise participant safety, wellbeing, or interests (NS 4.6.5). This extends to community expectations about how resource limitations affect the conduct of the research, participant wellbeing after the project ends, and how findings will be applied (NS 4.6.6). Any planned divergence from local expectations and requirements must be disclosed and justified to reviewers (NS 4.6.11); divergence is not forbidden, but it requires a genuine, articulable reason.
What must be reported to the Australian HREC
Researchers conducting overseas research must inform their Australian HREC or other review body whether relevant ethics approval or authorisation processes exist in each country where they will work, whether those processes are mandatory or voluntary for the proposed activity, and whether Australian HREC approval needs to be reported to satisfy local processes (NS 4.6.7). Where no local approval process exists or applies, the Australian HREC should apply the principles and guidelines of the National Statement, with additional regard to the outcomes of consultation and engagement with the local population and communities (NS 4.6.8). Researchers must also comply with any requirements set by funders or government bodies that direct conformity with overseas institutional standards or recognised international instruments (NS 4.6.9), and with any relevant legal requirements for research or engagement with local populations (NS 4.6.10).
Requirements vary widely between jurisdictions. Some common-law countries tie statutory ethics review to research funding or institutional affiliation, so independent evaluators may find no local statutory requirement applies to them. Other countries, including South Africa, Nigeria, and Brazil, mandate ethics committee review of all human research regardless of funding source. Aotearoa New Zealand has its own framework: health and disability research is reviewed by Health and Disability Ethics Committees, while independent social, market, and evaluation research sits outside that scope but should still engage with Te Ara Tika, the Health Research Council of New Zealand's framework for Māori research ethics. This jurisdictional detail changes over time and is not exhaustive; researchers and evaluators are responsible for verifying current requirements in the specific jurisdiction where the work will occur, as anticipated by NS 4.6.7.
Working with co-researchers overseas
Where co-researchers are recruited overseas, the Australian HREC must be informed of their capacity and expertise to conduct their part of the research, or how such capacity and expertise will be established, along with consideration of benefits for co-researchers during and after the project (NS 4.6.12, NS 1.1(e)). Australian researchers must ensure overseas co-researchers carry out the research according to a level of respect and consideration consistent with the National Statement (NS 4.6.13). Institutions and researchers should also identify, evaluate, and manage any risk of harm to researchers themselves arising from work overseas, including through local academic or institutional affiliations and support structures (NS 4.6.14). Where an overseas researcher is under Australian academic supervision, the HREC must be informed of how that supervision will be provided (NS 4.6.15).
What reviewers look for
Reviewers assess whether researchers have sufficient experience or access to expertise to engage with participants in ways that accord them appropriate respect, and whether the engagement plan and assessment of benefits, risks, and burdens reflects both National Statement values and local standards and expectations (NS 4.6.16). Researchers must also have arrangements in place for a local, readily accessible contact who can receive questions and complaints from participants, clear communication between that contact and the research team, a process for participants to reach the team or the reviewing HREC if no local contact is viable, and an independent complaint-handling process (NS 4.6.17). A contact number based in Australia is unlikely to satisfy this requirement on its own.
What a good application demonstrates
- Contextual knowledge: genuine familiarity with the communities, political context, and cultural norms of the country or countries involved
- Regulatory clarity: a clear account of what ethics approval or authorisation processes exist locally, whether they are mandatory or voluntary, and how they relate to Australian HREC approval
- Cultural responsiveness: evidence that local beliefs and practices around recruitment, consent, and remuneration have shaped the research design, with justification for any planned divergence
- Equitable benefit distribution: an account of the benefits the work brings to participants and communities, not only to the commissioning client
- Local complaint mechanisms: practical arrangements for a local contact and a clear escalation path back to the research team and the reviewing HREC
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.