The Dutch Pension Fund for Healthcare and Welfare (PFZW) has hit back at concerns over the influence of American asset managers on Dutch companies and climate policy, emphasising that external parties have no influence on its voting behaviour. 

A recent report from The Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) highlighted concerns over the growing influence of American asset managers in the Netherlands, raising particular questions over their influence on Dutch pension funds.

Whilst SOMO acknowledged that pension funds like PFZW manage part of their assets through Dutch asset managers, APG and PGGM, they also outsource "billions" to the four largest American asset managers.

Pension funds retain their voting rights formally as part of this, and often regularly exercise them independently.

However, SOMO warned that the impact of this is limited because the American parties manage much larger equity stakes and have a greater influence over the strategic direction of companies in which they are a shareholder, acting on behalf of their clients.

This sparked concerns for SOMO, as it argued that pension funds that manage hundreds of billions on behalf of millions of Dutch citizens have the responsibility not only to promise sustainability but also to actually enforce it.

"This makes true stewardship possible again: active, substantive involvement in the strategic direction of companies, instead of passively following stock indices," SOMO stated.

"This may sound like a pipe dream, but in reality, it is a return to a model that functioned for decades. In the post-war decades, pension funds like ABP managed their capital with a clear public mission. They directly financed housing construction, infrastructure, and state-owned enterprises through private loans.

"Until 1976, ABP even held the entire Dutch national debt(opens in new window) , demonstrating how capital was used in a targeted manner at the time to finance public goals."

SOMO argued that the role of asset managers and the way pension funds operate also raises broader issues for the Netherlands, pointing out that "whoever manages asset allocation largely determines the direction of the economy, industry, and climate policy".

However, PFZW has hit back at these concerns, confirming that voting at shareholder meetings is handled by PFZW's executive organisation, PGGM, and that it also follows its own voting guidelines, which are updated annually.

"PFZW carefully handles our participants' money and the investments necessary to achieve a good pension," the provider stated. "External parties act in accordance with PFZW's policies and guidelines and never influence the decisions PFZW makes in this regard."

BlackRock also disagreed with the concerns raised by SOMO, with a spokesperson stating: “As a minority investor on behalf of clients, BlackRock cannot and does not dictate a company’s strategy or its implementation.

"That is the responsibility of a company’s management and its board. As stewards of our clients’ assets, we engage with companies across our five engagement priorities, including climate and natural capital, to inform our voting decisions for clients who have authorised us to vote on their behalf.

"For clients who want to participate in the stewardship of their capital, BlackRock has built the largest voting choice program in the industry.

"We also offer a Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship program for those clients who choose to prioritise those investment outcomes for their portfolios.”

---