On ethics codes, licensure and OBM

Hyten (2022) wrote a position paper. He says outside OBM consultants should write their own ethics code. He thinks the BACB code is built for clinic work, not for offices, factories, or stores.

The paper is theoretical. No new data were collected. It is a call for the OBM field to act.

The author found no fit between the BACB code and daily OBM tasks. He claims the code can hurt consultants and the companies they serve.

The paper ends with a plan: create a separate OBM ethics code and teach it in graduate programs.

Hantula (2022) makes the same point in the same year. Both papers say the BACB code is wrong for OBM. Hantula goes further and calls the code harmful. The two papers back each other up.

Wine et al. (2025) widen the fight. Their survey shows OBM researchers already skip BACB research rules. This adds real numbers to Hyten’s claim that the code is too tight.

Cymbal et al. (2022) show another gap. Only one in four OBM papers report procedural integrity. This matches Hyten’s theme: OBM needs its own standards, not clinic hand-me-downs.

If you consult in business, you already bump into rules that feel made for clinics. You can use Hyten’s paper to start a talk with your client: “We follow behavior principles, but we use an OBM ethics lens, not the BACB code.” Push your local OBM group to draft a short, one-page ethics sheet that fits sales teams, not therapy rooms.