Summary of areas of concern raised in 鈥榝atal flaw鈥� feedback period and the Regulatory Board response
Following a period of extensive engagement with members, employers, and other stakeholders (both internal and external), including two full formal consultations in 2023 and 2024, the IFoA Regulatory Board (the Board) opened a 鈥榝atal flaw鈥� feedback period on proposed changes to the Actuaries鈥� Code and existing Code guidance in 2025.
In considering each of the objections received during the exposure period, the IFoA Regulatory Board (the Board) concluded that all had previously been raised and considered in some form during the consultations.
The below summarises the objections received (thematically) and the previous considerations by the Board.
Acting in accordance with the IFoA鈥檚 Regulatory Policy Statement, in particular the . Particular focus on whether: (1) sufficient analysis of: problem/issue seeking to address; and appropriateness of Code changes as solution; and (2) changes are principles-based.
The Board has considered this challenge carefully.
The Board approaches all of its regulatory policy decisions with regard to the principles set out in its Regulatory Policy Statement.
The Board are well accustomed to considering whether it is appropriate to take regulatory steps and to determine, if so, which, of all of the options available in its regulatory toolkit, are most appropriate.
It is important to acknowledge, that the Board鈥檚 role in setting and upholding standards serves the purpose not only of protecting the public but also of upholding the reputation of the profession, in the public interest.
Having regard to the final proposed wording, as amended, it is in the Board鈥檚 view consistent with this purpose to expect that members of the profession will demonstrate professional respect and 鈥渟peak up鈥� (in the sense of raising, rather than turning a blind eye to, issues of concern of the sort referred to in the Code). The obligations to speak up and demonstrate respect are already within the Code in any event - they are not new. The Board considers that these amendments provide a proportionate and reasonable clarification of the existing principles, addressing proportionately specific behaviours and responsibilities which are reasonably considered necessary prerequisites to ensuring a truly diverse and inclusive profession, in the public interest.
The Board recognises and agrees that these clarifications will not be sufficient in themselves. It will be important, as a number of respondents have noted, to continue the other strategic initiatives already commenced by Council to ensure the profession is open and inclusive to talented people from a wide range of backgrounds.鈥�
The Board acknowledges that the amendments in relation to the 鈥渞espect鈥� principle in particular do introduce somewhat more specific provisions, relating to bullying, victimisation or harassment, but consider these to be proportionate with a view to providing a degree of clarity and focus to these particularly egregious types of behaviour, the existence of which, if prevalent, will be likely to impact the profession鈥檚 standing as one which is genuinely open and inclusive. The drafting was also prepared with the benefit of benchmarking work to understand the approaches taken by other similar bodies who adopt the Principles of Good Regulation.
The Board notes, on the other hand, that some respondents have suggested that there should be more detail as to what is meant by some of these terms. This is of course a question of balance, in retaining a relatively high level and principles-based Code which is sufficiently clear in its own terms, without becoming a detailed book of rules, supported by illustrative guidance which usefully adds colour to the practical application of these principles.
The Board considers that these proposals do strike this balance. It intends however to review any issues which emerge in light of experience in a post-implementation review to begin once the changes have been in effect for 12 months.
The Board agrees that it would not be appropriate to 鈥榩oliticise鈥� the Actuaries鈥� Code, or any other aspect of the profession鈥檚 regulatory framework. This has never been its intention, nor, for the avoidance of doubt, does it seek to control or regulate in any respect, members鈥� particular political opinions.
It recognises however that the language and terminology of 鈥楧EI鈥� has to some extent increasingly become the subject of political controversy, sometimes associated with particular political viewpoints. This is one of a number of reasons for the conclusion not to add these specific terms to the requirements of the Code.
This is an existing requirement of the Code, the amendment simply serving to address a possible ambiguity in the existing wording, without changing its existing scope.
The original wording, 鈥�Members must show respect for others in the way they conduct themselves鈥� was considered somewhat ambiguous as to whether the underlined part of this principle related to 鈥淢embers鈥� or 鈥渙thers鈥�, potentially altering the way it might be construed, and potentially being interpreted to convey a more onerous obligation than that intended.
The simpler, amended form, 鈥�Members must show respect for everybody鈥� is intended to address this imprecision and make clear that members do not require to show respect in a positive sense for others鈥� conduct.
This was clarified by the Board following the Guidance Consultation.
This is an existing requirement, although it is extended slightly by the new amendments to include an expectation that members "should speak up if they believe that others are being treated unfairly or excluded unreasonably鈥�. Some concerns were expressed, firstly, as to whether it was sufficiently clear as to the precise meaning of the terms 鈥渢reated unfairly鈥� and 鈥渆xcluded unreasonably鈥�.&苍产蝉辫;
There were also one or two suggestions that this might be seen to amount to an obligation to initiate formal whistleblowing, which might place the whistleblower in a vulnerable position in the absence of statutory protections. Finally, there was a suggestion that the wording of this new provision, 5.2, should be aligned with that in the existing principle (Principle 5), 鈥渕embership speak up if they believe, or have reasonable cause to believe鈥�鈥�.&苍产蝉辫;
The Board has again considered these concerns and suggestions carefully.
The intent should be鈥痳ecognised to maintain a principles-based Code, ensuring sufficient clarity without, however, necessarily having to define in detail every term or concept as it may apply to each individual situation. The Board is satisfied that the concepts of unfair treatment and unreasonable exclusion are sufficiently clear to enable them to be interpreted appropriately in different contexts. Moreover, consistent with the rest of this clause, the new wording is framed as a 鈥渟hould鈥� provision, to enable a degree of justifiable discretion according to the circumstances.
Finally, the use of the term 鈥渂elieve鈥� is deliberate, the effect of which is to ensure that members cannot, under the Code, be criticised for not speaking up about something they did not believe to be the case. In other words, the Board has deliberately chosen to make the new provision at 5.2 more subjective as to the particular beliefs of the member, recognising the scope for potential different interpretations as to what may be considered unfair treatment or unreasonable exclusion in different contexts.
It is important to note that the new wording at 5.2 is an amplification of the existing principle, 5, the intent of which, as already noted, is to encourage members to raise issues which fall within this clause, rather than ignoring them, such as potentially to bring their and the profession鈥檚 reputation into question. The clause does not, however, specify formal whistleblowing; it simply makes clear that members should 鈥渟peak up鈥� and this could be in a range of ways, more or less formal, according to the context, as illustrated further in the guidance. For all of these reasons, the Board has concluded that this additional amplification is a proportionate and appropriate one, consistent with a principles-based Code and the public interest purpose described.
Detailed discussion about this following the Code consultation. and in discussions leading up to publication of Guidance Consultation.
Concern about disciplinary consequences: difficulty with enforcement; and concerns about how a Disciplinary Tribunal might interpret the requirements
The Board is satisfied that the provisions are sufficiently clear to enable appropriate enforcement in the context of a principles-based Code.
Further, the Board receives regular reports from the Disciplinary Committee, which oversees the operation of the Disciplinary Scheme and will continue to monitor the way in which these provisions are being enforced in practice. It notes in this respect that there is a relatively low volume of disciplinary cases overall and further that the Disciplinary Committee itself will be undertaking a post-implementation review of recent changes to the Disciplinary Scheme, in late 2025.
On a more philosophical note, whilst the Board does consider that the provisions as amended are enforceable in principle, its primary focus of course is not enforcement but to provide a positive influence on behaviour and standards such as to uphold the collective reputation of the profession.鈥�
The Board discussed the disciplinary consequences at length in its discussions following the Code Consultation and the Guidance consultation. This was reflected in the Feedback documents and also in the materials included in the draft Guidance that was consulted upon.
External legal advice was also obtained on 29 May 2024, as regards the potential for disciplinary implications arising from the proposed changes.
November 2021:
Board updated on the IFoA鈥檚 wider work on its strategy around DEI and the proposals to review the regulatory framework (including the Actuaries鈥� Code) to reflect DEI expectations of members
February, April and July 2022:
Board updated on project to review the regulatory framework in relation to DEI
November 2022:
Board provided with an update on the project to review the regulatory requirements for members around DEI, including:
Proposals were presented to Board that aimed to maintain the high level, principles-based nature of the Code, and at the same time use language that is clear and transparent as to the expectation of members.
Based on update, Board discussed and approved proposed changes to the Code to go out for consultation.
May 2023:
Board considered outcome of consultation on proposed DEI changes to the Code. It considered the following key themes arising from consultation:
Based on its considerations, the Board approved changes to the Code and approved proposals for implementation
November 2023:
Board considered outline draft guidance to support members in understanding their DEI responsibilities to be introduced through changes to the Code.
May 2024:
Board discussed Council response to draft guidance
May 2024:
Board approved in principle decision to go out to consultation on guidance subject to conditions
July 2024:
Board was updated on the outcome of Council鈥檚 mid-strategy review of its five-year DEI strategy and, having seen the changes made by Council to the DEI strategy, agreed to proceed with the consultation)
August 2024:
Board approved (by email) draft guidance to go out for consultation
December 2024:
Interim meeting of Board to consider outcome of DEI guidance consultation
January 2025:
Continuation of December 2024 meeting. Board further considered outcome of consultation, and approved changes to the Code and existing Code guidance
February 2025:
Board approved publication of consultation feedback paper, with the amended Code and Code Guidance, subject to further amendments to be circulated by email
March 2025:
Board approved by (email) consultation feedback paper, with amended Code and Code Guidance
May 2025:
Board considered comments received during 8-week exposure period).