The clash of generations will only increase in the time to come. In his column in the New York Times Thomas Friedman is spot on about the more general financial challenges of the ‘debt drama’ the USA and Europe are facing. Interesting question: ‘Father, whose side were you on when they were selling our country?  You should definitely read it.

Back to pensions. Today’s Financial Times fund management review includes a one pageinterview with Dutch pension giant APG chairman Dick Sluimers.  (‘Dutch pension chief calls for regulatory level playing field’ July 18^th 2011).  Sluimers shares his views on challenges for pension funds. He promotes an international level playing field and a better understanding of for example the consequences of Solvency II. As part of a new pension agreement it should be communicated more properly, Sluimers says, that pensions become less certain when returns become more important than the revenue generated from premium payments.

I guess a better understanding would contribute to maintaining the necessary trust level and solidarity for the system. And isn’t that in essence a generation issue? Will regulatory and technical modifications be enough to bridge the generation abyss?

As a reader of this interview I was both concerned and disappointed that the notion of environmental social and governance (ESG) management is not mentioned at all, for two reasons. Firstly for the inconsistency that is now being displayed. Since APG is a promoter of responsible investment, I don’t understand why Sluimers doesn’t use this podium for a more ESG centered statement, or at least shares his views.  Secondly because I believe ESG may be a helpful way of explaining what pensions are all about: both financial security and a world that is worth living in. That message will also contribute to a better understanding across generations. Both the financial and the pension sector need a better agenda to bridge the generation gap, ESG management is likely to contribute to that.