Answer capsule
The code that took effect April 1, 2025 added language covering obligations carried out through software, databases, technology-assisted tools, and artificial intelligence.
What the source establishes
- ICF states that the current Code of Ethics took effect on April 1, 2025.
- New Standard 2.5 expressly applies ethical and legal obligations through technology systems and AI.
- New Standard 3.7 requires disclosure when an ICF professional is acting in another professional capacity.
Decision implication
Private AI coaching engagements should state when the coach is coaching, training, advising, building, or consulting because those modes allocate authority and responsibility differently.
Evidence to inspect
Inspect the engagement agreement for tool disclosure, recording and transcription choices, model access, file retention, subcontractors, and role changes during the work.
Boundary and caveat
The ICF code governs members and credential holders within its ecosystem; it is not a license regime for everyone who markets AI coaching.
What to do next
Ask the coach to walk through one hypothetical role transition and one data-handling scenario before any sensitive executive material is shared.
Turn this source into a reviewable decision
For Executive AI Coaching, use this briefing as a dated decision record rather than a substitute for the source. Preserve International Coaching Federation, the exact URL, the July 20, 2026 review date, the supported facts above, the editorial interpretation, the limitations, and any buyer-specific evidence. Link that record to the decisions most directly affected: Named practitioner and continuity; Current applied AI practice; Coaching method and client agency; Confidentiality and data handling. State whether the source changes the scope, evidence requirement, control, sequence, or only the language used to describe the decision.
Before action, name the accountable owner, affected population and workflow, exact offering or configuration, source data and rights, human decision point, exception and appeal path, complete cost, expected benefit, failure and stop conditions, retained evidence, and next review date. Keep official facts, provider statements, buyer observations, representative tests, measured outcomes, editorial inferences, and unknowns visibly separate. Reopen the record when the source, offer, model, integration, data, policy, population, responsible person, or measured result changes.
Decision test
Ask whether the source changes the decision itself, the evidence required, the implementation sequence, or only the language used to describe an existing capability. Record which claims are directly supported, which are provider statements, which require an independent test, and which remain unknown. A source-linked review should make uncertainty easier to see, not bury it inside a blended score.
Questions to take into review
- Who personally leads every session, and can that person be changed without consent?
- What AI systems and executive workflows has the coach personally used recently?
- How does the engagement develop judgment instead of creating dependency?
- Where do files, recordings, transcripts, prompts, and notes go?
The publication supports research and executive decision preparation. It does not provide legal, financial, accounting, employment, clinical, cybersecurity, investment, procurement, or implementation advice.