Contracting is widely positioned as the primary ethical mechanism in coaching, establishing expectations, boundaries, and the conditions of engagement. Within this framing, consent is frequently assumed to be embedded within initial agreements. The paper proposes both a conceptual and practical decoupling of consent from contracting, arguing that consent should be understood as a distinct ethical process rather than assumed to be encompassed within the coaching agreement. Contracting is positioned as the relational architecture of the coaching engagement, while consent is reframed as an ongoing, situational, and intervention-specific ethical practice.

Drawing on coaching ethics, psychological codes, and consent theory, the paper compares coaching frameworks, including the International Coaching Federation (ICF) Code of Ethics and the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) Global Code of Ethics, with psychological standards such as the Psychology Board of Australia Code of Conduct and the British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Ethics and Conduct. The analysis highlights that while coaching frameworks primarily emphasise agreement-based ethics, adjacent professions more explicitly conceptualise consent as continuous, revisitable, and operationalised within practice. Failure to distinguish these concepts risks undermining client autonomy, obscuring power dynamics, and reducing ethical responsiveness. 

A dual-framework model is proposed: contracting frames the professional relationship; consent protects the person within it. This distinction strengthens ethical clarity, enhances psychological safety, and supports the continued maturation of coaching as a profession.