Ethics Approval vs. Institutional Approval: What’s the Difference?

If Your Study Has Ethics Approval, Why Would You Need Another Approval?

You submit your protocol to an ethics committee. The committee reviews your recruitment, consent procedures, risks, privacy protections, and treatment of participants. Eventually, you receive approval or a favorable ethical opinion.

Then the hospital, school, university, company, or other organization where you intend to conduct the research tells you that you still need its approval.

This can feel like the same study is being approved twice. Often, however, the two decisions answer different questions. Ethics approval concerns the ethical acceptability of the research. Institutional approval concerns whether a particular organization authorizes the research to proceed within an area for which that organization is responsible.

Ethical Acceptability Does Not Automatically Grant Institutional Permission

What Each Approval Actually Means

What does ethics approval mean?

Research ethics review asks whether proposed research is ethically acceptable. For research involving humans, the review commonly considers matters such as participant welfare, risks and potential benefits, informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, equitable participant selection, recruitment practices, conflicts of interest, and whether the research has sufficient scientific or methodological justification to expose participants to its procedures or burdens.

The body conducting that review may be called a research ethics committee, institutional review board, human research ethics committee, or another name depending on the jurisdiction and institution.

The outcome is also described differently across systems. You may receive an approval, ethical clearance, favorable opinion, exemption or determination, or another formally defined decision. These terms should not be assumed to mean exactly the same thing internationally.

For example, the UK Health Research Authority describes Research Ethics Committees as independent bodies that review research applications and provide an opinion on whether the research is ethical. A favorable ethical opinion can form part of a wider approval pathway rather than constituting every authorization required for the study.

What does institutional approval mean?

Institutional approval, sometimes described as institutional authorization, site authorization, management permission, governance approval, or through another locally defined term, concerns whether an organization permits research activities for which it has responsibility.

The organization may need to consider matters that extend beyond ethical acceptability. Depending on the setting, these can include whether appropriate personnel and facilities are available, whether the proposed activity complies with institutional policies and applicable law, whether contracts or agreements are in place, whether privacy and information-security requirements have been satisfied, whether financial arrangements are acceptable, and whether risks to the organization have been appropriately managed.

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council guidance illustrates the distinction clearly. It describes ethical review and site assessment as distinct processes within research governance. Ethical review considers the rights, dignity, and welfare of participants, while site assessment considers institution-specific matters such as resources, budget, risk management, and applicable legal, regulatory, jurisdictional, and administrative requirements.

The terminology is not universal. What one institution calls "institutional approval" another may call "site authorization," "research governance approval," "management permission," or something else. Researchers should therefore establish what institutional permission means in the organization where the study will occur.

The easiest distinction is to ask what each decision authorizes

The two reviews can examine the same issue for different reasons

The distinction is not a perfectly clean dividing line. Privacy provides a useful example.

An ethics committee may examine privacy because unnecessary disclosure of identifiable information could harm participants or undermine their autonomy. An institution may examine the same data flow because it has legal or organizational responsibilities for information held in its systems.

Likewise, an ethics committee might question whether a study is adequately resourced if insufficient staffing would expose participants to avoidable risk. The institution may examine staffing because it needs to determine whether it actually has personnel available to deliver the study.

Overlap therefore does not necessarily mean duplication. The same fact can matter to different decision-makers because they hold different responsibilities.

Institutional approval is not simply a second ethics review

An institution generally does not need to decide again whether every ethical issue has been correctly resolved if it legitimately relies on an appropriate ethics review. Instead, its own authorization may address matters that fall within its institutional remit.

This distinction is especially visible in systems designed to reduce duplicative review. In England and Wales, for example, HRA and HCRW Approval combines governance and legal assessment with the independent ethical opinion of a Research Ethics Committee within a coordinated application process. Participating organizations may still need to confirm that they have the capacity and capability to undertake their role in the research.

A single application pathway therefore should not be confused with a single type of decision. Administrative integration can bring distinct assessments together without making them conceptually identical.

Institutional permission and participant consent are also different

There is another distinction that researchers sometimes miss. An institution may have authority to permit research on its premises, authorize access to its systems, or allow researchers to approach people through institutional channels. That does not ordinarily mean the institution can volunteer competent individuals to participate.

Institutional authorization concerns the organization's authority. Informed consent concerns the individual's autonomous decision about participation. The circumstances in which organizational permission and individual consent operate together therefore need to be considered separately.

A Study Can Be Ethical but Still Await Institutional Authorization

These decisions concern the same project, but they do not grant the same permission. The ethics committee does not ordinarily control the school's premises or staff communication system. The school does not ordinarily make the individual teacher's voluntary participation decision.

The researcher therefore needs to understand whether permission is required before recruiting members of an organization rather than treating ethics approval as universal access.

Common Mistakes About Ethics and Institutional Approval

Map the Decisions Before You Begin Recruitment or Data Collection

Instead of asking whether your project is simply "approved," identify the decisions that your particular study requires and what each decision actually permits.

The distinction matters because a favorable ethics decision may still leave prerequisites to starting the study. Finding those prerequisites early is considerably easier than discovering them after participants have already been approached.

Check What Each Approval Actually Covers

Questions About Ethics and Institutional Approval

Approval Is Only Meaningful When You Know What Was Approved

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.