Danish pension funds hold DKK 258bn (€34.6bn) in companies excluded by at least one other pension fund, bank or state fund, according to a new database comparing responsible-investment policies and equity holdings.
The amount represents 16% of the combined listed equity holdings of 15 Danish pension funds, an analysis of 24 exclusion lists covering 5,536 companies has found.
The data, published by the independent association Follow my money, highlights differences in how institutional investors assess companies on ESG grounds.
PensionDanmark has the highest proportion of equity holdings in companies blacklisted by peers, at 18.9%, equivalent to DKK 26.4bn. PFA, Denmark’s largest commercial pension provider, holds DKK 74.2bn in such companies, representing 17.6% of its equity portfolio. PFA does not publish its own exclusion list, according to the analysis. PFA did not respond in time for publication.
At the other end of the ranking, Pædagogernes Pension, which serves social educators, has 10.3% of its equity holdings in companies appearing on at least one exclusion list. Lærernes Pension, serving teachers, has 11.3%, while AkademikerPension, whose members include graduates and teachers, has 11.7%. The latter figure excludes emerging-market shares.
Examples of discrepancies are, for instance, Tesla, which is excluded by seven Danish pension funds, primarily over workers’ rights, but is held by PFA and many others. Amazon is also excluded over workers’ rights by Industriens Pension and Pædagogernes Pension, while 16 other Danish pension funds and banks hold the company. The pension funds’ holdings in these stocks alone amount to DKK 30.9bn.
A PensionDanmark spokesperson said investment and exclusion decisions followed board-approved guidelines and individual company assessments, rather than other investors’ exclusion lists. This could mean investing in defence companies supporting Denmark and its NATO allies, as well as oil and gas producers given their continuing role in energy supply during the transition to lower-carbon alternatives.
“The discrepancies between the funds are confusing for most members”
Benjamin Holst, Follow my money
An ATP spokesperson said its exclusions were likewise based on its own board-approved responsible-investment policies, not other investors’ lists. Differences between funds were unsurprising given their varying policies, methodologies and assessments. ATP would not comment on comparisons based solely on other investors’ exclusions.
“The discrepancies between the funds are confusing for most members,” said Benjamin Holst, founder of Follow my money and a Danish investigative journalist who co-founded watchdog Danwatch.
“Having a standardised exclusion list across the board would strengthen not only consumer confidence but also the concept of ESG, which is under pressure from accusations of greenwashing, among other things.”
The organisation allows users to search for a pension fund, bank or company, identify holdings appearing on other institutions’ exclusion lists and examine the reasons for exclusion. The free, English-language database requires no login and publishes its methodology and sources. Pension funds and banks can upload updated exclusion lists.
The analysis uses institutions’ published holdings, valued as of the dates of their respective lists, and covers listed equities rather than entire pension portfolios.
