IMHO this is not the proper frame of question for this case - it's not about whether academic institutions should be held to this standard, but rather that they

IMHO this is not the proper frame of question for this case - it's not about whether academic institutions should be held to this standard, but rather that they have publicly committed to doing so and have made it a binding requirement on their researchers, and in this case have violated this commitment. A different aspect (not sure if it's relevant in this particular case) is that certain sources of research funding will impose certain ethical requirements, including specific process for human subject research - and that would apply also to for-profit companies if they would receive such funding for some project; and of course, the owners/shareholders of for-profit companies are also free to impose a higher ethical bar for e.g. A/B testing in their company, just as shareholders/owners currently are imposing various other ethical and social goals for their management and company policies. But for the actual question of "why should academic institutions be held to a higher standard than commercial ones?" IMHO a good answer is "why not?" - I mean, if they do not object to having this higher ethical bar (and these institutions generally do not), that's entirely a good thing.