Client feedback


It’s a pleasure working with key members of the PSGS team: their experience and leadership means that they know how to get the job done, working in partnership with fellow trustees, employers and advisers to achieve the best result for members.
Mark Smith,
Partner at Taylor Wessing
Good, helpful guidance.
Christine Morris,
Twyford Bathrooms
The service runs very smoothly, might have expected a few more difficulties transitioning to a professional trustee.
In my experience, not all professional trustees are able to cope with tricky or potentially confrontational situations. I find PSGS has massive experience in getting involved, earning the respect of others and resolving such issues. They get stuck in – they are a first rate team.
Katherine Dandy,
Partner at Sackers & Partners
Alex is the first professional trustee we have had and has revolutionised the way they look at things - helped above and beyond.
Angela Clayton,
Accent Group
Always willing to get involved and move things forward.
Steve Sampson ,
LGC

Should members pressurise trustees over carbon investments?

OK, so we all know pension trustees have a responsibility to provide benefits to their pension scheme’s beneficiaries to be in line with the Trust Deed and Rules and to exercise discretions available to them as necessary. Trustees also have a responsibility to make sure those benefits are provided at a reasonable cost - given they pick up the tab of paying for them, defined benefit (DB) pension scheme sponsors would say this is key!

But how do you draw the line or make decisions on cost versus benefit, especially when that benefit is environmental?

We’re hearing more and more about responsible investing. It is an area that is growing and is certainly something pension trustees should explore. It can provide great value for pension schemes but, by the same token, investments shouldn’t be made purely on their green credentials.

I recently saw an article about a union suggesting members push for changes in their pension schemes investments - in particular pressurising them to divest from carbon related investments. Whilst this could be seen as a noble action - after all, climate change is high on the agenda for a lot of countries and politicians - I don’t agree with members pushing pension trustees to make different investments.

The article suggested as members contributed to the scheme it was their money that was being put into these carbon investments. The concern I have is this does not take into account the fact the employer would have to pick up the cost of funding any deficit if the non-carbon investment provided a lower return than the carbon investment. In my opinion, companies should not have to fund this additional cost if this is not something they agree to.

So, what’s the solution?

There’s never a one size fits all model that can be applied. If a more socially responsible investment strategy is something pension trustees wish to explore, this should be considered at a high level. The risk/reward characteristics need to fit within the overall investment strategy for the scheme.

If a solution can be found that fits with the scheme sponsor’s values and they’re happy to fund the difference (if any), then responsible investments should be seriously considered. What we shouldn’t be doing is encouraging members to pressurise pension trustees without recognising the dialogue also involves the sponsoring employer.

 

 

Back to opinions

 

Hot topics


PSGS & 20-20 Trustees merge to form Vidett
Hot Topic

Punter Southall Governance Services (PSGS) & 20-20 Trustees (20-20) have today announced they...

Read more »


Don’t be surprised that your gilt funds are being treated like an emerging market
Image of Hot Topic author Sophia Harrison, Client Director

You may have seen or heard about the article in the Financial Times about how Insight...

Read more »


More opinions »


Call: 0118 207 2900

online enquiry