Multiple codes of conduct on charges and costs would be "horrendous" and make it harder to boost transparency says Margaret Snowdon.
Speaking at a Transparency Task Force (TTF) summit on 12 September, the Pension Administration Standards Association's (PASA) chairwoman listed the dangers of multiple codes.
These include making the journey longer and task harder to achieve real transparency.
Instead, one protocol would "make it harder for the industry to do bad things," she said.
A successful protocol would use simple language, have a common definition of value for money, be industry wide and have practical suggestions for stakeholders, she added.
Snowdon (pictured above) referred to how the industry came together to take action on pension scams as an example which could be looked at for developing the protocol.
Different methods include the revised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) which comes into effect on 3 January 2018 for all investment firms and the Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (PRIIPs).
The DWP expects to publish its response to the consultation at the end of 2016.
This is designed to standardise reporting of fees, charges and implicit costs, in a bid to make the industry more transparent. The board will report on its findings later this year, before the IA launches a public consultation on the proposed code.
However, the board has been criticised for holding its meetings confidentially. In response its chairman Mark Fawcett, also chief investment officer of National Employment Savings Trust (NEST), said this requirement was to ensure "a full and frank discussion".
