Inclusivity – the forgotten ‘I’ in ED&I for trustees

However, unlike the well-established order of its high-profile colleague ESG (environmental, social and governance), there has been some inconsistency about how we write it.

The Pensions Regulator uses ED&I, many people opt for DE&I, but as long as we do not opt for DI&E, I would prefer to focus on its significance for the defined benefit pensions sector.

This is particularly true of the inclusivity plank of ED&I, which is a key consideration at both trustee level, in the management and administration of pension schemes, and how schemes communicate with members.

While I wholeheartedly support the renewed impetus on the drive with the E&D side, inclusion is where I get most excited and where I think it will get most interesting for the sector

TPR’s on a mission

TPR is working towards guidance for trustees and employers to help them navigate their way through how ED&I principles can be adopted in their schemes.

My expectation is that the regulator will ease the path for schemes by emphasising diversity of skills, specialism, personality and perspective on trustee boards.

Some of these may be challenging to identify but will, when recognised and understood, lead to better working relationships for people working within these schemes and their advisers.

Through also recognising the unconscious bias that we must all deal with on a daily basis, this is likely to lead to better decision-making for schemes and their members.

However, while I wholeheartedly support the renewed impetus on the drive with the E&D side, inclusion is where I get most excited and where I think it will get most interesting for the sector. That is because inclusion looks at both sides of the coin: trustee relationships and relationships with members.

It marks the crux where the “E” and the “D” working together will create a space for an improvement of inclusivity that benefits us all.

Inclusivity on trustee boards

Trustee boards should include inclusivity as the next step on from diversity.

Are members of the board that are from underrepresented areas properly integrated into the board, so that their voices are encouraged and can be heard? Is this decision-making process open to input from all members? Do all members feel heard and able to speak?

Are meetings dominated by “stronger” personalities? How can trustees avoid confirmation bias by challenging established practise?

The inclusivity must also go further and into how and where meetings are held.

How are meetings hosted? Those that remain online may be a barrier to those without the relevant hardware or technical skills to properly engage, and have their own challenges when it comes to detailed and nuanced debates.

Alternatively, when thinking about inclusion, how are meetings held “in person” only dealing with the time and travel issues that present a major problem for those with disabilities or childcare commitments?

Recruitment to boards for member and employer-nominated trustees also remains an issue. One part of the solution to this could be a root up review of the way recruitment is communicated to would-be candidates.

Are documents drafted in a way that actually puts people off? Are member-nominated trustee invitations drafted in a way that makes someone want to be a part of the role running a pension scheme?

These are the questions that trustees must vigorously analyse to ensure they are creating the most inclusive environment for all decision-makers, so that they can achieve the best possible outcomes for their members.

Inclusivity for members

The inclusivity considerations for members are a fantastic catalyst to consider how we communicate with them.

Member engagement is something the industry has talked about and wrestled with for years. Personally, I think we set ourselves too high a target, as people will never engage in the way that many of us with a passion for pensions do.

Instead, we should use the challenge of inclusivity to have an honest conversation about how people like to be communicated with and in a way that makes sense for them.

Some of that may sound quite fluffy, but how long do schemes spend thinking about the literacy, financial literacy, and disability of their members?

We should be open to this challenge of making things better for those who may struggle to understand, and through this exercise we can drive improvements in how we communicate across the board.

We can start on this journey now

We do not necessarily need TPR – ironically, another three-letter acronym – to tell us about how we interact with each other and our members.

We know our colleagues better than the regulator, and if you do not – get to know them. We also know our members better than anyone, and if you do not – get to know them.

But as an industry we have appeared to revel in making pensions sound complex and impenetrable, too many acronyms for a start.

We need to stop this, and the “I” of ED&I could be a great way of stimulating this progressive change for the benefit of pension schemes, those that work in the sector and their members.

David Brooks is head of policy at Broadstone