Feature
Professionalism Training
Business Acumen / Personal Effectiveness
The Ethical Compass on Navigating Professional Dilemmas
Industry topics
Upcoming events
Lifelong learning
Learning Management Systems
Claim your CPD points
At the 2025 Asia Pacific Ethics and Professionalism Seminar, Stuart Turner, Chair of the Actuaries Institute's Professionalism Committee, was joined by actuaries Iris Lun, Ian Laughlin, Sarah Esley, Christian Barrington, Saffron Sweeney and Paul Carrett to deliver a compelling perspective on how professionals can navigate ethical dilemmas through a balanced approach to decision-making.
Rather than relying on any single approach, Turner outlined several ethical perspectives professionals should consider when facing dilemmas. These perspectives emphasised the importance of understanding the tensions between these different viewpoints.
Following the crowd
"What are others doing?" Turner identified this approach as "moral relativism" - determining what's right based solely on industry norms or competitor behaviour.
"If you're just relying on what others are doing, you're not actually giving thought to the true reasons behind the actions that you want to take," Turner explained.
This perspective challenges the common practice of benchmarking ethical decisions against industry standards without deeper consideration.
The limitations of rules alone
While regulations provide essential boundaries, Turner cautioned against "deontology" - also known as duty-based ethics - which relies exclusively on established rules to determine right from wrong, regardless of potential consequences.
"We need to be absolutely conscious of whether we are following the rules at all times, but we also need to recognise that that might not give us all the information we need to make the right decision," he noted. This acknowledges that ethical decision-making often requires judgment beyond mere compliance.
Focusing on outcomes
Turner highlighted "utilitarianism" - evaluating decisions based on their outcomes - as critical when considering the impact of choices on stakeholders.
"We might be looking at things like the outcomes for customers, in terms of our stakeholders or the performance of our business," he explained, referencing investment returns as an example. This approach ensures decisions generate appropriate results rather than just satisfying procedural requirements.
The self-interest challenge
Perhaps the most challenging part is recognising when self-interest influences decision-making.
Turner said,
"We don't want self-interest to be the driver of our ethical decisions but we always have to be conscious that it might be motivating other people or us."
This self-awareness extends to organisational self-interest and could take many forms, such as presenting financial returns in the most favourable light, or personal motivations like avoiding embarrassment when previous work contains errors.
Values as the ultimate guide
According to Turner, the foundation of ethical decision-making is rooted in personal, organisational and professional values.
"When we're making an ethical decision, we can consider if the actions that we're taking are in support of our values," he stated. For actuaries specifically, this means upholding professional values like integrity, impartiality and speaking up when situations demand it.
During a lively Q&A, the panel explored how ethical principles can be put into practice, unveiling key considerations for actuaries, executives and professionals across different fields.
The discussion shed light on insights that are not only universally relevant but also deeply personal to each of us.
Fairness and price optimisation in practice
When questioned about determining fairness in algorithmic pricing, panellist Iris Lun emphasised transparency:
"As a customer, I would want to know if I'm being charged more than someone with similar risk… and why you're charging me this way."
Ian Laughlin added that organisational philosophy provides essential guardrails.
"If you had a pricing philosophy that stated, 'All policyholders will be priced the same given they've got the same risks'… optimisation issues need to be considered in that context."
Transparency and technology
The panel addressed the tension between professional transparency and the inherent opacity of AI algorithms.
Lun stressed professional responsibility: "Ultimately, you are the one who should be understanding what the AI does… be able to explain it to the board, to management" and emphasised that AI should function "not [as] your replacement… more like your assistant," with professionals maintaining control over both inputs and outcomes.
When values clash
The panellists recognised the challenges professionals face when organisational values don't align with client interests. Paul Carrett framed this as a risk management issue, stating,
"The risk for your career in a place [with misaligned values] is profound even if it's highly remunerative."
His advice was straightforward: "Leaving an organisation like this is pretty important, maybe a difficult thing to do at the time, but it feels like one of those things… [where] you'll look back on with pride."
Emerging ethical frontiers
The panel identified several emerging challenges, including climate risk disclosure and the tension between community expectations of insurance access and increasingly precise risk-based pricing.
Sarah Elsey highlighted discrepancies between public perceptions and profit-driven strategies, advocating for preventive measures to bridge this divide. She observed that "there's a clear difference between what the public thinks is okay and what the insurers have been doing."
Christian Barrington underscored the necessity of broader societal dialogues regarding living and building in "high risk areas" emphasising the limitations of relying solely on insurance interventions. He stressed that insurance is not the solution to everything and that society must collectively address whether we should live and build in these locations, how we might de-risk these areas, and how to balance short-term versus long-term risk mitigation strategies.
As Turner noted, actuaries are "right in the middle of that tension" between traditional underwriting practices and broader societal expectations.
Turner closed the seminar by encouraging all professionals to initiate ethical discussions in their workplaces,
"You don't need any particular set of skills to do the right thing; it is something we can all do."
This democratisation of ethical discussion recognises that navigating complex professional decisions requires collective engagement. As Turner summarised, the goal is for professionals to be "equipped to make better decisions and have good reasons and defensible reasons behind our professional and ethical decisions that we face from day to day."
For those eager to explore these topics further, keep on eye out for the event recording that will be available in upcoming months.
