The UK pensions sector enters 2026 in the midst of another wave of reform. The Pension Schemes Bill, renewed focus on consolidation and scale, the revival of the Pensions Commission, and the Department for Work and Pensions’ recent consultation on governance and trusteeship all signal a system in motion. Much of this agenda rightly focuses on structure, efficiency, professionalism and outcomes. Yet there is a striking omission: the role of pension scheme members themselves.
Defined contribution pensions have fundamentally reshaped the relationship between individuals and the financial system. Millions of people now own capital through their pension pots and bear the investment risks associated with it. Yet governance models have not evolved in tandem. Decision-making remains largely insulated and distant from the savers whose futures are at stake. As we embark on another busy year of reform, it is worth asking whether the modernisation of pensions can succeed without a more serious — and perhaps more uncomfortable — conversation about member participation and engagement.
The shift from defined benefit to defined contribution has transferred market, longevity and inflation risk from institutions to individuals. But power has not followed risk. Most members do not know who governs their scheme, how key decisions are made, or how their money is invested and stewarded on their behalf. Ownership has been democratised; governance has not. That imbalance is becoming increasingly difficult to defend, both practically and ethically.
This is not an argument for direct democracy in investment decision-making, nor for diluting fiduciary responsibility. Rather, it is a recognition that good governance improves when it is subject to scrutiny, transparency and accountability. These principles are long embedded in corporate governance, yet applied unevenly in the pensions context. In a system that depends on long-term trust, legitimacy matters. Savers who understand how decisions are made, and feel their perspectives are taken seriously, are more likely to remain supportive of long-term strategies — including during periods of market stress.
Looking beyond the UK is instructive. Pension governance varies significantly across jurisdictions, and some systems embed democratic features more deeply than ours. In Denmark, for example, member representation on boards and joint governance arrangements between employers and unions are normal. In the Netherlands, accountability bodies routinely review and challenge trustee decisions. In Sweden, members elect representatives who help shape investment risk appetite. These arrangements are not seen as incompatible with strong fiduciary standards; rather, they reinforce them by anchoring governance more firmly in the interests of beneficiaries.
We also have domestic traditions to draw upon. Corporate governance brings disciplines of fiduciary duty, independent oversight, disclosure and challenge. Mutuals offer models of member participation, meaningful elections and cultures that evolve through dialogue rather than opacity. Modern pension schemes should be drawing on the strengths of both traditions: the rigour of fiduciary governance combined with the legitimacy that comes from participation.
For many years, objections to deeper member engagement focused on practicality. Schemes were said to be too large, the issues too complex, and engagement too costly. Technology has fundamentally altered that calculus. Digital platforms make two-way communication far easier, enabling schemes to consult members, test priorities and explain decisions at scale.
Artificial intelligence offers the potential to turn dense investment reports, voting records and stewardship activity into clear, accessible information that members can interrogate in plain language. Used well, technology lowers the cost of transparency and raises expectations of accountability.
Alongside this, there is growing interest in deliberative approaches to member engagement, drawing inspiration from citizens’ assemblies and other forms of structured public participation. These models prioritise informed discussion, learning and reflection over headline polling. In other policy areas, they have helped surface nuanced views and build legitimacy where difficult trade-offs are involved. Applied carefully to pensions, they offer one way of deepening understanding of member priorities without reducing complex decisions to simplistic binaries.
Recent public opinion research makes this concrete. Polling commissioned by ShareAction and conducted by Survation in 2025 found that pension savers hold clear and strongly expressed views about pay. Large majorities said it was important that employers pay the real Living Wage, and more than three quarters said it mattered to them that their pension was invested in companies that treat their staff well, including paying that wage. This was not a marginal concern, but a mainstream expectation, particularly among members of large workplace schemes. The question for the industry is whether current governance arrangements allow such priorities to inform stewardship and investment practice in a consistent and systematic way. Where a disconnect persists, trust in the system is put under strain.
None of this diminishes the importance of trustee expertise or professional judgement. On the contrary, governance that is open, well-explained and responsive to beneficiary concerns is more robust, not less. As reform accelerates, there is a risk that governance becomes defined too narrowly — as compliance, scale and professionalisation alone. These are necessary conditions for success, but they are not sufficient.
Pension scheme boards govern the long-term futures of millions of people. They invest trillions on their behalf and exert significant influence over the economy and society those members will one day retire into. As the sector embarks on another year of reform, it is worth remembering that legitimacy, trust and accountability are not peripheral concerns. They are central to the sustainability of the system itself. Deeper member participation is not a distraction from reform; it is one of its unfinished foundations.
