Nearly half of pension scheme trustees and sponsors (42 per cent) are concerned about the additional governance challenges, and associated costs, that The Pensions Regulator's Defined Benefit (DB) Funding Code will bring, research from Hymans Robertson has found.

The poll also found that nearly a quarter (22 per cent) of pension scheme trustees and sponsors suggested that although changes from the code may be straightforward, the associated costs and additional compliance may be more complicated.

Despite this, the survey found that only 10 per cent of scheme trustees and sponsors expect the code to lead to a significant change of their current plans.

The survey also found that just over half (52 per cent) of trustees and sponsors plan to use the code as an opportunity to review, and sense check, their long-term strategy.

Hymans Robertson highlighted this as evidence of the "delicate balance" needed between bringing a minority into line and adding an additional layer of compliance for schemes who are already doing the right thing.

Commenting on the findings further, Hymans Robertson partner and head of scheme actuary services, Laura McLaren, said that while most schemes have already been looking ahead to the coming changes, all schemes are still going to have to do more governance-wise, to map out future strategy in the format required and report on progress.

She continued: "With many plans in good shape, it is perhaps not surprising to see a focus on this additional paperwork and the associated compliance costs.

“Until both the code and the regulations are finalised, some caution remains in regard to the overall cost impact.

"The rigidity of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) regulations, in particular, is a gnawing concern despite there being a lot more flexibility in code itself. This tension needs resolved with amendments to the regulations to ensure TPR’s framework will work as intended.

“Ultimately, it would be disappointing if the changes distract focus or disrupt well-planned scheme-specific approaches due to insufficient flexibility, or the compliance burden becoming disproportionate.”

Share Story: