NETHERLANDS - The e156bn ABP plans to merge its participant's counsel with its employers counsel to boost employee and pensioner participation in the policy-making of the fund.
ABP said that the move was aimed at bridging the widening gap between generations and giving all involved a greater say in actual policy decisions.
A spokesman said: “The move underlines the importance of solidarity between generations. There is a danger that young people will have to pay extra to sustain the older generation.
“This platform for pension fund governance will give both the young and the old an opportunity to be a part of the decision making process.”
He added: “If we lose this solidarity the whole system maybe at risk - it could collapse and we could have much more expensive pensions and the system and we cannot afford that.”
The merged council will provide advice to ABP’s board of governors.
Currently, the fund’s board of governors comprises six representatives from unions, six representatives from employers and one independent chairman. It is responsible for financial policy, portfolio management and pension implementation.
PGGM, the other major Dutch pension fund, has also recently established the PGGM council with pensioner and employees representation.
The council was set up to advise the board of governors on issues such as changes in pension regulations, adoption of the financial statements and increases to existing pensions.
Hyperbolic discounting and political temptation: Why Brexit-fuelled AE reversal would be a 'monumental' mistake
The home secretary has suggested AE should be scrapped in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Darren Philp explains why this would be misguided
The trustees of the Kodak Pension Plan No.2 (KPP2) have said it will likely enter the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) in "due course" after reviewing the scheme's investment in Kodak Alaris.
A US company has completed a £285m pensioner bulk annuity for around 1,100 of UK members with Legal & General (L&G).
Former BHS chief Dominic Chappell has been accused of trying to rewrite history as he seeks to overturn a conviction for failing to hand over information to the regulator.