Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 77–89 | Cite as

Independence, Conflict of Interest and the Actuarial Profession



The actuarial profession has a long history of providing critical expertise to society. The services delivered are some of the most complex and mysterious to outsiders of all professions but little has been written about the professional responsibilities of actuaries in the academic literature beyond that of the profession itself. This paper makes the case that the issues surrounding professional independence of actuaries are, in principle, similar to those that faced the audit profession before the scandals and resultant regulatory changes early this century. It is argued that, despite the position taken by the actuarial profession and management, the status quo raises genuine concerns about conflicts of interest and independence and that the risks that arise are of sufficient magnitude that they should at least be the subject of a full debate.

Key words

conflict of interest actuaries auditors 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Act to Incorporate Canadian Institute of Actuaries, 1964–65 S.C., ch. 76 (Can.)Google Scholar
  2. Age-Old Conflicts: Reforms are Required for Insular Actuaries, Fin. Times, Dec. 20, 2004Google Scholar
  3. American Academy of Actuaries: 2001, ‹Code of Professional Conduct’, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  4. Baker, C. R.: 2005, ‹Concept of Auditor Independence, Shifting with the Prevailing Environment’, CPA Journal August 2005. Accessed 8 Aug 2008
  5. Bazerman, M.H., Morgan, K. P., & Loewenstein, G.F. (1997). The impossibility of auditor independence. Sloan Management Review, 38(4), 89–94.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, C.: 1999, ‹The Transformation of the Accounting Profession: The History Behind the Big 5 Accounting Firms Diversifying into Law 33’,
  7. Brown, D.: 1999, ‹Public Accounting at a Crossroads, Remarks to the Business Leaders Luncheon, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario’, Accessed 3 Oct 2008
  8. Bymes, N. and M. McNamee: 2000, ‹The SEC vs. CPAs: Suddenly, It’s Hardball; A Plan for Tighter Oversight of Auditors has them up in Arms’, Business Week 49Google Scholar
  9. Canadian Institute of Actuaries, `What We Do',
  10. Canadian Institute of Actuaries: 1992, ‹Rules of Professional Conduct’. Ottawa, Accessed 14 Oct 2008
  11. Canadian Institute of Actuaries, Committee on Pension Plan Financial Reporting: 2006, ‹Standards of Practice – Practice-Standards for Pension Plans 3009’, Accessed 14 Oct 2008
  12. Canadian Institute of Actuaries, ‹About Actuaries, Where We Practise’, Accessed 14 Oct 2008
  13. Canadian Institute of Actuaries, ‹History, About the Institute’, Accessed 14 Oct 2008
  14. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA): 1999, CICA Handbook: Section 3461.153, Employee Future Benefits (CICA, Toronto)Google Scholar
  15. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants: 2000, ‹Conflict of Interest: A Task Force Report’, Accessed 14 Oct 2008
  16. Canadian Pension Benefits Standards Act, R.S.C., 1985, c.32 (2d Supp.)Google Scholar
  17. Cheffers, M., & Pakaluk, M. (2007). Understanding Accounting Ethics 2d ed. Sutton, Massachusetts: Allen David Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, N.: 2008, ‹Pensions Actuaries Under Scrutiny’, Financial Times (North American Edition) 16Google Scholar
  19. CRUSAP Task Force: 2006, ‹A Critical Review of the U.S. Actuarial Profession, Final Report for the U.S. Actuarial Profession & Other Interested Parties’, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  20. Daniels, A. K.: 1975, ‹Professionalism in Formal Organizations’, in J. B. McKinlay (ed.), Processing People (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York), pp. 303–338Google Scholar
  21. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829. Codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001–1461 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. Epstein, B. J., E. L. Black, R. Nach and P. R. Delaney: 2004, Wiley GAAP 2005 (Wiley)Google Scholar
  23. Financial Accounting Standards Board: 1985, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 87, Employers’ Accounting for Pensions (Financial Accounting Standards Board, Norwalk, Connecticut)Google Scholar
  24. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario: 2003, ‹Special Bylaw I of 2003 (Independence Standard Bylaw)’, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  25. Internal Revenue Service, ‹Enrolled Actuary Information’,,id=97441,00.html. Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  26. Kieso, D.J., Weygandt, J.J., Warfield, T.D., Young, N.M., & Wiecek, I (2007). Intermediate Accounting (8th ed.). Toronto: John Wiley & Son Canada Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Levitt, A.: 2000, ‹Testimony Concerning: Commission’s Auditor Independence Proposal’, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  28. Lord, R.: 2001, ‹Public Interest and Integrity Speech at the Toronto Conference: Corporate Governance: A Canadian Focus’, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  29. Markelevich, A., C. A. Barragato and R. Hoitash: 2005, ‹The␣Nature and Disclosure of Fees Paid to Auditors’, CPA Journal, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  30. McNamee, M. and N. Byrnes: 2002, ‹An Abrupt About-Face by Accountants: Their Trade Group will no Longer Oppose New Rules that Would Force a Separation of Consulting and Auditing for the Same Client’, Business␣Week, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  31. McNamee, M., P. Dwyer and C. H. Schmitt: 2000, ‹Accounting Wars: Powerful Auditor-Consultants are the Targets of Arthur Levitt’s Crusade’, Business Week, 156, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  32. Messick, D.M., & Sentis, K·P. (1979). Fairness and Preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 418–434. doi: 10.1016/0022–1031(79)90047-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morris, D.: 2005, ‹Morris Review of the Actuarial Profession, Final Report’, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  34. Pension, B. S. R.: 1985, Pension Benefits Standards Act SOR/1987-19 (Can.). Reg, 2(1).
  35. Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P.8Google Scholar
  36. Professional Oversight Board: 2006, ‹The Actuarial Profession’s Progress in Implementing the Recommendations Made to It by the Morris Review’. London, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  37. Professional Oversight Board: 2008, ‹Discussion Paper, Monitoring and Scrutiny of Actuarial Work’. London, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  38. Q&A: Equitable Life: 2008, ‹The Guardian’, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  39. Sack, R.J., (1985). Commercialism in the Profession: A Threat to be Managed. Journal of Accountancy, 160, 125–130.Google Scholar
  40. Sarbanes-Oxley Act: 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. (116 Stat.) 745Google Scholar
  41. Special Report: When the Spinning Stops – Actuaries and the Pensions Crunch (2006, January 26). The Economist Google Scholar
  42. Society of Actuaries: 2008, ‹What is an Actuary?’, Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  43. SEC Final Rule S7-13-00 Final Rule: Revision of the Commission’s Auditor Independence Requirements. 17 CFR Parts 210 and 240Google Scholar
  44. SEC Revision of the Commission’s Auditor Independence Requirement, 34 Fed. Reg. 42,994 (proposed June 30, 2000) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. pts. 210 and 240), Accessed 16 Oct 2008
  45. Weil, J. and J. Tannenbaum: 2001, ‹Big Companies Pay Audit Firms More for Other Services’, Wall Street Journal, April 10, C1Google Scholar
  46. Zeff, S.A., (1998). Independence and Standard Setting, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9, 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Wilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations