Denmark’s AkademikerPension has rebutted criticism it has received from a journalist at a Danish newspaper stating that the comment piece contains “a large number of factually incorrect claims”.

The comment in Danish newspaper Berlingske by its business editor, Thomas Bernt Henriksen, made several claims about the pension fund relating to the pension fund’s decision not to vote for the re-election of Maersk chairman, Robert Uggla, at its recent annual general meeting, as well the pension fund’s sustainability activities and reporting.

At the AGM, AkademikerPension was unsuccessful with its shareholder proposal, which it submitted with LD Fonde, asking Maersk to report more and better on its work to assess and manage the risk of contributing to violations of human rights and labour rights.

Despite abstaining from the vote on Uggla’s re-election, which Bernt Henriksen described as “hollow activism and a bit of adult bullying”, the pension fund said it is “factually incorrect that we do not want Robert Uggla as chairman of Maersk”.

Instead, AkademikerPension said it abstained as it believes there is a lack of independence in several key board committees – including the nomination committee.

“This is ultimately the responsibility of the chairman of the board to rectify. In addition, it was an aggravating circumstance that Maersk does not have all board members elected by the general meeting up for election every year. AkademikerPension is not alone with these views,” it stated.

Responding to criticism about its board, the pension fund said it is “factually incorrect that you cannot see the duties and interests of board members, such as Henrik Klitmøller”. It said this is documented in its annual report and has been for several years.

AkademikerPension said it was also factually incorrect that it does not present figures for the return effect of its divestment of companies that extract coal, oil and gas, for example.

“In fact, we have done so for several years regarding the divestment of fossil energy. In this year's reports, we also present figures on the impact of divestment of tobacco, controversial weapons and certain government bonds (EMD). In fact, the overall effect is slightly marginally positive - even of fossil fuel divestment,” it stated.

Providing evidence for this is said that since April 2018, the combined effect of the three sector exclusions and country exclusion has resulted in an estimated positive return effect of 0.2 per cent.

Furthermore, the pension fund said it was incorrect that it does not like to talk about how returns can be hit "hard in a negative direction", as claimed by Bernt Henriksen. It argued that it has been “openly disclosing” this for years.

Defending its investor activism it stated: “The risks of global warming, including financial risks, are so significant that it is both for the sake of long-term returns and the world in which our current and future members will live and retire that we put pressure on companies and governments to do enough about the green transition.”

---