Methodology
Promoting transparency for better pension outcomes
The Global Pension Transparency Benchmark process
The GPTB measures whether pension organisations are clearly disclosing how they generate value for stakeholders. For this fourth iteration of the GPTB, the overarching methodology remains the same.
Disclosures continue to be scored across four equally weighted factors:Â cost, governance, performance, and responsible investing.
The same 15 countries and 75 funds included in the inaugural ranking were reviewed. The selection criteria was robust national pension systems with representation from all continents. The five largest pension management organisations (by AUM) within each country were scored to determine the country rankings. These organisations included DB and DC pension funds, reserve funds and sovereign pension funds. Â
The fund assessments were conducted between May 1 and September 30, 2024. Where the scores are the same, a joint ranking has been awarded and listed alphabetically.
The independent reviews included fund websites, annual reports, financial statements, and various other published documents. Reasonable, but not exhaustive, efforts were made to find information. Key disclosures should not require extensive effort and time to find and understand. Transparency means information is easily accessible.Â
Disclosures were scored using yes/no answers to capture what is disclosed/not disclosed. For some disclosures, where there were wide ranges in the information value and clarity, a more subjective 0/1/2 scale (not disclosed/basic/excellent) was applied.Â
Keeping the framework consistent year over year allows for direct comparability and the ability to capture trends. However, the survey was updated this year to remove or improve overly interpretative questions; keep the responsible investment survey current; and align the cost survey questions with reporting best practice as set out by CEM’s Global Reporting Principles.
The organisations listed below have made significant contributions to improving transparency and disclosure standards. Higher scores as well as examples of ‘Best Practice’ often came from organisations that used their frameworks and standards.
Climate Disclosures Standards Board (CDSB)
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC)
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)
Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
United Nations – Principles for Responsible Investing (PRI)
United Nations – Sustainable Development Goals
VBDO – Dutch Association of Investors for Sustainable Development
Key challenges
A key challenge was to design questions that provided the flexibility to accommodate key differences across funds. Reasonable, but not perfect comparability, was achieved. These comparability challenges included:
- plan type (e.g. DB, DC and combinations of both).
- organisational mandate (investment only, investment and member services).
- regulatory framework (e.g. pension insurance and trust models).
- competitive environment (funds compete for members or have captive members).
- languages – the team translated technical materials across 11 languages and varying print formats.Â
Factor assessment component questions
The review questions for Cost, Performance, Governance and Responsible Investing can be found by downloading the full GPTB questionnaire.
Please note, your details will be shared with both CEM and Top1000funds.com. Your data will never be shared with any other organisations or third parties.