Alongside celebrations and reflections on 20 years of championing conservation, Icon is using its milestone anniversary to explore the opportunity to petition for Royal Charter. With the consultation period now open, two Icon members shaire their contrasting perspectives on the proposal.
Simon Cane ACR & Patrick Whife
Conservators in the UK have grappled with the question of recognition for many years. The value of our work is undeniable, yet all too often the sector struggles to have its voice heard by employers, funders, and government which is down to size, scale and understanding of our standards.
Conservators in the UK have grappled with the question of recognition for many years. The value of our work is undeniable, yet all too often the sector struggles to have its voice heard by employers, funders, and government which is down to size, scale and understanding of our standards. Accreditation has however been a great success, copied by others, offering practicing conservators a solid foundation for practice and customers a guarantee of competency, but apart from a few notable heritage organisations, Icon Accreditation is not as widely recognised as we would like. Chartered status, on the other hand is a widely recognised standard of quality and surety so represents a next logical step in addressing the challenge of recognition for conservators. It signals the maturity of the conservation profession, taking forward the progress made since the development of Icon and the introduction of Accreditation more than twenty years ago.
Academic and other sector sources suggest that there are a number of factors that define a profession, these include in no particular order, initial professional education, accreditation, skills development, ongoing professional development, codes of ethics, self-regulation (including the ability to take disciplinary action), generating and sharing applied knowledge, structured communities of practice and governance.
Icon's Professional Standards were built on these accepted and proven concepts and provide the foundation that defines conservation as a profession in the UK. They establish clear expectations and our sector's commitment to the maintenance and development of high standards of practice across the sector. Chartership does not change this, but rather builds upon these achievements, giving additional, external validation to what we already do well. It is a progression that places us on an equal footing with other professions that enjoy the benefits of Chartership, helping to elevate our voice and visibility.
This step, however, is about more than recognition alone. It is also about reinforcing and maintaining standards of practice. Since its inception at 'convergence' in 2005, Icon has sought to raise quality and accountability within the profession. Chartered status continues that objective by clearly demonstrating to the wider heritage sector that our profession is strongly self-regulating and committed to continuing improvement. This recognition will strengthen our position in negotiations with employers and funders and enhance our influence within the wider heritage and skills landscape.
Icon’s professional framework is distinctive. Unlike the system shaped by ECCO, it does not rely on a single academic pathway but instead values both academic and vocational entry routes, meaning that we can attract the best talent into the sector. This diversity is one of our strengths, and Chartered status would reflect that reality while upholding the highest expectations of competence and integrity.
The ambition of achieving Chartered status for Icon’s Accredited members is highly compatible with our existing professional standards and Icon’s strategic aims for the sector. It is a logical and importantly achievable step that builds on the work the membership has put into professional standards over the last twenty plus years. Chartered status will offer conservators improved visibility and understanding in the wider heritage sector and provide members with a professional credential that is immediately legible to employers, funders, policymakers, colleagues and the wider public.
We are a small sector, but the impact of our work is far-reaching. Chartered status offers us the opportunity to be recognised at a level that properly reflects our contribution to the preservation of our shared national cultural heritage and will help us with arguments around policy, education and practice. Chartered status embodies our approach to progression through creating an elevated platform for recognition and the future development of professional conservators.
Dr. Athanasios Velios
I recently attended one of the informative sessions about the possibility of Icon applying for chartership. While the session was very well organised and gave the opportunity for questions and discussion, there was a lot of information to consider and I want to apologise in advance if I have misunderstood aspects of the proposal.
Becoming a chartered institute would mean that the processes followed within Icon (e.g. accreditation) would be validated by the Privy Council Office on behalf of the monarch. Gaining chartered status would mean that the profile of the profession would be raised, aligning it with other chartered professions such as accountants and engineers. Certainly there will be benefits if we decide to follow the path of chartership, however, I wanted to also consider this proposal from a slightly different point of view.
My first point is that applying to an external organisation for validation implies that we adopt the position that Icon is not able to undertake such validation itself. Therefore, we reduce the value of past and current work Icon has undertaken, creating the impression that we are losing the agency to assess quality within our profession, making us dependent on external bodies. I consider validation here only relevant to the substantive elements of conservation. Tasks such as governance, financial management and reporting, can be done by involving other chartered professionals regardless of Icon's chartered status.
My second (and more important) point is that chartered status will not address any of the main problems of the profession. Some of the biggest problems in the profession have been the low salaries, the lack of career progression and in more recent years the intensification of work often combined with the lack of capacity for any interesting research and the exclusive focus on minimal essential and routine tasks.
These problems are not accidental. They have emerged from policies by successive governments. Over the past 25-30 years, we have seen the underfunding of culture and its subsequent commercialisation alongside the diminishing of conservation education in higher education with multiple courses closing in a landscape driven by maximising income from fees. These are the results of decisions made by politicians.
The Privy Council is primarily served by the same politicians that proposed and voted for the policies that have caused these problems in the conservation profession. It is likely that the members of the Privy Council have minimal understanding of what the conservation profession is about, let alone any experience of working within it. It is therefore valueless to request those people to validate Icon – what would such validation mean in practice?
Becoming a chartered organisation would address none of the main problems of the profession. It would not increase the salaries, it would not create paths for career progression and it would not bring workloads back to a reasonable level. It would certainly not improve the conservation training landscape. It would not do any of these things because they all require funding and funding for culture will continue to shrink. The conditions in national and regional museums and libraries, some of which are starved of resources, will not change and the conditions of the conservators working there will not change either.
Freelance conservators may benefit from a chartered profession, in that they could charge higher fees for their work arguing that this extra validation is proof of the high quality of work they undertake, however the market is limited and the limits are set by parameters that are not linked to professional titles. Any fees conservators charge will never be comparable to fees that engineers, accountants or lawyers charge, so the comparison to these professions is not useful.
By submitting to the judgement of the Privy Council:
- we are validating decades of failed policies for conservation and
- we are establishing an environment where a few decision makers, without any substantive expertise in conservation, unnecessarily control our profession even though Icon has proved its ability to self-regulate.
Let us all consider the substance of the proposal and not only the attractiveness of the title.
Have Your Say
The ultimate decision whether Icon should apply for a Royal Charter now lies with you. All eligible members are encouraged to participate in this decision-making process. To vote, you must be an Accredited, Associate, Pathway, Student or Emeritus Member of Icon.
Online voting closes at 5PM GMT on Monday 3 November 2025. For any questions or to confirm your eligibility, please contact [email protected].
This is a defining moment for both the organisation and the profession. Whether you are in favour of chartership or not, your voice matters, and your vote will shape the next chapter of Icon’s journey.