Skip to content

9 July, 2025

  • Saved Articles
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • EU sustainability

      Omnibus package must not undermine EU sustainability

      Now is the time for Europe to speed up green transition, rather than slow it...

    • high pay

      Pay gap transparency needs to be better

      It’s not unknown for a CEO to earn 500 times as much the median employee,...

    • executive pay

      Executive pay trends in 2025

      Opposition to remuneration reports has grown sharply, according to Georgeson’s analysis of voting outcomes in...

  • Comment
      • View all
    • EU sustainability

      Omnibus package must not undermine EU sustainability

      Now is the time for Europe to speed up green transition, rather than slow it...

    • high pay Pay gap transparency needs to be better

      It’s not unknown for a CEO to earn 500 times as much the median employee,...

    • future-proof governance levers How to future-proof your business

      For boards to bolster resilience and create value in a polycrisis, a combination of hard...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • UK Corporate Governance Code Board meetings ‘are not up to scratch’

      Nearly three-quarters of board members believe the board’s performance in meetings needs improvement, an expert...

    • financial sanctions Tariffs chaos drives boardroom focus on resilience

      Business leaders will prioritise the resilience of their organisations in the face of economic upheaval...

    • supply chain oversight Act now on supply chain oversight, boards warned

      Board directors need to critically engage with the business’s supply chain activity, a panel of...

  • Board Careers
  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Board Advisory & Corporate Services
    • C-suite barometer: outlook 2025 – UK insights

      Forvis Mazars draws UK insights from its global study and looks at UK executives’ strategic...

    • Talent Management 2025 Mind Gym

      Talent Management in 2025

      From rethinking leadership to wrestling with AI, MindGym's report reveals the trends shaping talent strategies...

    • Korn Ferry CHRO 2025 (Copy)

      On The Highwire: Being a CHRO in 2025

      Korn Ferry surveyed 750 senior HR leaders (including 450 CHROs) to understand their key priorities...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Careers
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology

‘Uncharted territory’ for directors as hard line set for pension regulation

by Ashurst Ashurst SPONSORED

Board directors are entering a tough new era, with regulatory proposals to impose sanctions for directors who deliberately put their employees’ pensions at risk.

Ashurst, pension regulation

Image: Shutterstock

When the construction giant Carillion collapsed earlier this year it emerged that the company went under, leaving liabilities of around £7bn. Observers questioned why the company’s problems were not spotted sooner. But the subject soon turned to pensions when it emerged that £2.6bn of that staggering sum was estimated to be a liability to the company pension schemes.

The implications for employee pension arrangements from corporate failures like Carillion’s and others, such as BHS, have made the management of pensions front-page news. Demand among commentators is that company directors should be accountable as stewards of employee pensions, just as much as they consider themselves captains of industry.

“Directors of companies that sponsor defined-benefit schemes have entered an uncharted minefield.”

–John Gordon, Ashurst

The government has taken that message to heart. Carillion went bust in January and, though it wasn’t the only spur for change, in March the Department for Work and Pensions published a white paper notable for its hard line. The proposals, closely followed by a consultation which ran until mid-August, raised eyebrows.

In the proposals, there are new powers for the Pensions Regulator to impose punitive fines on those who “deliberately put their pensions scheme at risk”; the introduction of a new criminal offence to punish those guilty of “wilful or grossly reckless behaviour” in relation to a pension scheme; and new obligations to notify the Pensions Regulator and pension scheme trustees about planned corporate activity.

Tougher approach

The proposals crystallised into policy the argument, long-made by many, for a tougher approach to making board directors answerable for company pensions and comes as a significant extension of the regulator’s current powers. Though the final legislation is yet to be published, the environment for company directors will undoubtedly change, according to John Gordon, counsel, and Adam Levitt, partner, at City law firm Ashurst.

“Directors of companies that sponsor defined-benefit schemes have entered an uncharted minefield,” says Gordon. “They need to be careful where they step because there is currently no map to guide them.”

There are two questions observers are asking. The first is whether the system of punitive fines will be brought in retrospectively, applying to events since the publication of the white paper earlier this year. Secondly, there is a lack of clear guidelines as to what may constitute “wilful or grossly reckless behaviour” in relation to the proposed criminal sanction.

Regulatory scope

A key change in the newly proposed regime is a broadening of the scope of who can be targeted. John Gordon points out that while, in theory, action against individual directors is possible under today’s regulation, in practice it rarely happens. Directors will be much more at risk under the new plans.

When the new proposals are implemented, as everyone expects, the regulator will be looking to see how significant corporate policy decisions made in the boardroom affect the position of pension schemes. “What we expect the regulator to be looking for is whether actions taken at a corporate level have the effect of worsening the position of the pension scheme,” Gordon says.

Given the number of defined-benefit schemes out there—approximately 6,000—that adds up to many decisions and a lot of company directors who must pay much more attention to pensions.

One headline corporate action under the microscope is the payment of dividends, and whether deciding to pay them damages a company’s ability to support a pension scheme. It is no coincidence that one of the big concerns to emerge from events at Carillion is how the company managed to build such huge liabilities throughout 2017, yet still pay a record dividend of £79m in June the same year.

Indeed, the government’s white paper on protecting pensions makes frequent mention of dividends, pointing out that the regulator can already encourage, or require, an employer to reduce payments “if a scheme is not being treated fairly compared to other stakeholders”. Combine that power with the regulator’s parallel ability to investigate corporate activity going back six years and the proposed new punishments take on a new meaning.

However, dividend payments are not the only boardroom decisions that can cause implications for pensions. “We are entering a world where directors should be concerned before making any substantial dividend payment, refinancing, securitisation, returning capital to shareholders, and acquisitions and disposals in general,” says John Gordon.

Given the number of defined-benefit schemes out there—approximately 6,000—that adds up to many decisions and a lot of company directors who must pay much more attention to pensions. Indeed, the Pensions Regulator is understood to have at least 1,000 of those schemes on a watchlist because of their current funding positions.

Careful consideration

The key for directors in this new era is to ensure that they have properly considered the interests of their pension scheme before pushing ahead with a decision. “If, before you take corporate action, you considered the effect of that action on the pension scheme,” says Gordon, “and you reasonably decide that action will not have a materially detrimental effect on the pension scheme, that is a defence at the moment to some of the regulator’s powers.”

Before launching into a dividend payment, a share buyback or a company acquisition, it is critical that directors carry out an analysis of the potential effect on the pension scheme. A probe should establish the position of the pension scheme, and the corporate support provided to it, before and after the corporate action.

“The trustees in all pension schemes have one significant power: to invest the scheme’s assets.”

–John Gordon, Ashurst

Directors should bear in mind that assets moved away from a company—or companies in a group with responsibility for a defined-benefit pension scheme—could set alarm bells ringing with the regulator and trustees of the scheme. Any action that might push the scheme down the list of creditors, or reduces the amount the trustees could expect to receive in a corporate insolvency, could also raise red flags.

Based on the results of the analysis, directors should decide whether to engage with the trustees of the pension scheme, or possibly even speak to the Pensions Regulator about “regulatory clearance” for the proposed corporate action. The clearance process was once more popular but fell out of favour. Under the new regime, though, companies will be expected to notify the regulator and trustees before carrying out significant corporate activity.

However, the first port of call should be trustees. “You are treating the trustees as important stakeholders in the corporate group—in many cases as the group’s principal unsecured creditor,” says Levitt. Trustees will listen and it is possible they will request some form of reassurance, or quid pro quo, for the pension scheme as a condition for the corporate activity to go ahead. This could be a payment into the scheme when dividends are paid.

The alternative is to take a view that the action will not be detrimental and ignore the trustees. But though that may be an option, it is not one guaranteed to build a good relationship with trustees. These days, trustees expect to have a seat around the table when big decisions are on the board agenda.

And, while the relationship between the board and the pension scheme trustees can appear to be fraught at times, in essence they both want the same thing—a strong company which can support the scheme. They are aligned in that respect.

“If you have collaborative relationships it allows for corporate activity to happen in a very cooperative way”, adds Gordon.

Listen to the trustees

In short, trustees cannot be ignored. John Gordon recommends that when weighing up a big decision, company directors should consider the attitude of the trustees towards the company, as well as the powers they have under the governing documentation of the pension scheme.

“That’s important,” he explains. “The trustees in all pension schemes have one significant power: to invest the scheme’s assets. Many trustees also have the unilateral power to take action which would trigger immediate payments from the company, such as winding up the pension scheme.

“So, it’s easy to see that there are actions trustees can take which could have implications for the company, especially if they engage in a process of investment de-risking because they believe a board decision has made the company’s position more tenuous.”

Further detail, including regulations to implement the new corporate pensions regime, is expected in the autumn. Uncertainty will continue to overshadow the relationship between company directors and pensions until then. One thing we know for sure though is that change is on the way.

This article has been prepared in collaboration with Ashurst, a supporter of Board Agenda.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • Directors' social networks reduce risk of corporate failure
    May 4, 2022

    Study says failure is less likely when a board’s “social network” is large, its managerial network small and its executive pay relatively low.

  • The 30-year itch: time to ditch the UK Corporate Governance Code
    July 1, 2022
    Man with magnifying glass

    Now that governance has come of age, businesses should be able to innovate within the boundaries of good regulation.

  • ESG legislation: What are the FRC proposals?
    August 17, 2022
    FRC proposals sustainability ESG

    The FRC has set out its plans to help integrate sustainability into corporate governance, reporting and audit reforms.

  • MEPs protest over EU sustainable corporate governance measures
    June 25, 2021
    EU flag

    Members of the European Parliament have written to commissioners amid fears that key measures in the legislation will be watered down.

Search


Follow Us

Register Free

Stay in the know! Register to access the latest governance news; plus receive updates about our events and podcasts – Sign up here

 

Most Popular

Featured Resources

wef global risks 2025

The Global Risks Report 2025

The 20th edition of the Global Risks Report reveals an increasingly fractured global...
Supply chain management cover

Strategic Oversight in Supply Chain Management: A Guide for Corporate Boards 2025

Supply chains have become complex, interdependent and opaque and—according to research...
OB-Cyber-Security

Cyber Security: What Boards Need to Know

Maintaining firewalls, protecting servers and filtering malicious emails rarely make...

The IA’S Principles Of Remuneration 2024 2025

This guidance from the Investment Association is aimed at assisting remuneration...
Diligent 2024 leadership tech cover

Leadership, decision-making & the role of technology: Business survey 2024

This research report by Board Agenda and Diligent sheds light on how board directors...

Director Reference Guide: Navigating Conflict in the Boardroom

The 'Director Reference Guide' on navigating conflict in the boardroom provides practical...
Nasdaq 2024 governance report cover

Nasdaq 2024 Global Governance Pulse

This Nasdaq survey gathered data from more than 870 board members, executives, and...

Becoming a non-executive director (4th edition)

Board composition is the subject of much debate, while the role of the non-executive...
art & science brainloop new cover

The Art & Science of Creating an Effective Board

Boards are coming under more scrutiny and pressure than ever before from regulators,...
SAA First time NED guide

First Time Guide for Non-Executive Directors

The role of the non-executive director has never been more vital: to advise, support,...

Register Free

Stay in the know! Register to access the latest governance news; plus receive updates about our events and podcasts. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Board Advisory & Corporate Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
|

Copyright © 2025 Questor Media Group Ltd.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap