Given the mandatory nature of Dutch pension funds, participants are required to join the fund designated for their industry or selected by their employer, with no option to choose or exit if they disagree with policies – such as those concerning sustainable investments. This lack of choice may weaken both participant engagement and support for the pension system as a whole. Moreover, participant representation in the pension domain is limited. In the Netherlands, most pension fund boards consist of members from labor unions and employer organizations, with some retiree representation. Although pension participant councils emerged from recent governance reforms, concerns remain: (a) who joins these councils (likely skewed by self-selection toward higher-income, older men), and (b) whether participants feel truly represented. Participants generally remain disengaged, resulting in weak governance.

Many Dutch pension providers are enhancing participant engagement, driven by societal pressures, anticipated legal changes, and soft law. For instance, the Responsible Business Conduct Agreement (by SER) pushed funds to involve participants in strategic decisions regarding responsible investments, often through surveys or focus groups. However, these approaches are prone to biases, and limited sample sizes make generalizations challenging. Few pension providers engage representative participant bases directly, often due to resource constraints and perceived participant literacy gaps in finance and sustainability. Many rely on market research agencies unfamiliar with pension specifics, introducing further bias.

To improve participant involvement, the research team for this WP recently collaborated with Pensioenfonds Detailhandel (PD) to introduce a “deliberative mini-public” (DMP), the first time globally that such a format was used in the context of pension fund sustainable investments. It engaged a representative participant group in policy deliberations, fostering democratic engagement, mutual understanding, and tolerance. PD has a long-standing commitment to participant engagement. In 2018, it conducted a binding referendum on expanding sustainable investments and followed up in 2020 with a non-binding survey, generally showing substantial support for incorporating sustainability in investment policies.

Given the diversity of societal opinions on sustainability topics (e.g., climate change, biodiversity, human rights), pension fund participants likely hold varied views on these issues. Gaining insight into these perspectives is especially crucial in the mandatory Dutch system, where governance structures exhibit limited participant involvement. These insights will support pension provider boards in aligning their responsible investment strategies with participants’ interests. This WP will therefore develop innovative ways to elicit sustainability preferences among participants in Dutch second-pillar pension schemes. This WP uses key insights stemming from WP1 (drivers of and barriers in sustainability decisions by individuals) and will provide key input for WP3 (communication about sustainable investments).

Key research questions

  1. How can findings from a representative but small group in the “Deelnemersdialoog” (this is how the deliberative form was labelled at PD) be corroborated across a pension provider’s broader participant base? Is there alignment between the larger sample and “Deelnemersdialoog” participants?
  2. How can pension providers foster a continuous, meaningful dialogue with pension participants on sustainability through online and face-to-face deliberative mini publics?
  3. Do default investment settings (sustainable vs. conventional) align with employees’ preferences? How accurately can employers predict employee preferences, and do employer choices reflect these or their own preferences? What factors shape employers’ default selection, and how can providers better align with employee preferences?