Dutch Pension Fund Exits From BlackRock Over Climate Concerns
BlackRock Inc. has lost a mandate worth €14.5 billion ($17 billion) with one of the largest pension funds in the Netherlands, amid concerns the world’s biggest money manager isn’t acting in the best interests of clients when it comes to climate risk.
PFZW, which oversees about €250 billion ($290 billion), will instead rely on Robeco, Man Numeric, Acadian, Lazard, Schroders, M&G, UBS and PGGM to oversee an equity portfolio worth some €50 billion, a spokesperson for the pensions manager told Bloomberg on Wednesday.
A BlackRock representative said the asset manager “noted PFZW’s redemption in the first half of 2025,” adding that it continues to help clients, including those in the Netherlands, meet their sustainable investing goals. PFZW has “always voted their portfolio with BlackRock themselves,” and BlackRock offers “eligible clients” the option to “participate in the stewardship of their assets,” the representative said.
PFZW is the latest asset owner to voice discontent with US money managers that have retreated from climate alliances amid an all-out assault on net zero policies by the White House. PME, another Dutch pensions manager, told Bloomberg earlier this year it’s reviewing its mandate with BlackRock, valued at some €5 billion.
“PFZW has been developing a new investment strategy where financial performance, risk and sustainability are weighed equally within the framework of a total portfolio approach,” the fund said in an emailed comment.
Its mandate with BlackRock was valued at €14.5 billion as of the end of March, which is the latest period for which PFZW was able to provide a figure, the spokesperson said. PFZW said it continues to invest in BlackRock money market funds. PGGM, which handles investments for Dutch pension funds, said PFZW was also pulling a €15 billion mandate it had had with Legal & General. A spokesperson for L&G declined to comment.
Dutch pension funds have been under pressure from a local nonprofit, Fossil Free Netherlands, to end their ties with BlackRock. The Break with BlackRock initiative asked savers to urge their pension funds to act, and thousands have done so, according to the nonprofit’s website.
PMT, another Dutch pension fund, said BlackRock manages a passive equity portfolio that’s built around a benchmark that the fund has created and which determines “where to invest,” according to a spokesperson. ABP, the largest pension fund in the Netherlands, said it requires external managers to follow its responsible investment policy.
The role asset managers play in addressing climate change remains a topic of debate. Firms including BlackRock argue that clients have different investment goals that it’s obliged to respect. Still, the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change recommends that asset owners engage with managers on “the need for net zero aligned policy advocacy and wider industry stewardship.” IIGCC also recommends against leaving voting to asset managers.
Dutch media outlet NRC Handelsblad reported earlier that PFZW was making changes to its approach to asset management that included dropping BlackRock.
PME plans to decide on its BlackRock mandate before the end of the year, a spokesperson said on Wednesday, noting that the firm has had “several” exchanges with the US asset manager over the past year.
Back in May, PME’s senior strategist for responsible investing, Daan Spaargaren, told Bloomberg the €57 billion pension manager’s concern was that BlackRock wasn’t doing enough to distance itself from the anti-climate rhetoric of the administration of US President Donald Trump.
BlackRock and other US asset managers “aren’t condemning what Trump is doing and how he is operating and how he is handling issues like climate change and demolishing the judiciary,” Spaargaren said at the time. “We are worried about that.”
So what's this all about? Well, to me reading this, it's obvious Dutch pension funds are caving to political pressure and distancing themselves from BlackRock.
Why do I say this? From the article above:
Dutch pension funds have been under pressure from a local nonprofit, Fossil Free Netherlands, to end their ties with BlackRock. The Break with BlackRock initiative asked savers to urge their pension funds to act, and thousands have done so, according to the nonprofit’s website.
That right there tells me the governance model at these Dutch pension funds is all wrong, they basically bow to pressure from their members, sponsors and interest groups even if it's not in the best interest of their plan over the long run.
BlackRock is an easy target, it epitomizes Wall Street, it's the world's largest asset manager and invests everywhere including traditional energy companies.
Now, to be fair, PFZW was careful in calibrating its response:
“PFZW has been developing a new investment strategy where financial performance, risk and sustainability are weighed equally within the framework of a total portfolio approach,” the fund said in an emailed comment.
Still, this sounds to me like they rejigged their investment strategy to justify exiting from BlackRock.
As far as BlackRock is concerned, it's fed up of climate politics -- from the Left and Right -- and has been attacked within the United States from Democrats and Republicans for either being anti-DEI/ pro fossil fuel or pro-DEI/ anti fossil fuel.
At the beginning of the year, BlackRock announced it is leaving the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, joining other Wall Street firms that departed the environmentally focused investor group under pressure from Republican politicians.
That prompted a swift response from the Canadian Climate Institute which stated BlackRock should listen to its CEO from 2020, climate risk is still investment risk:
Global leadership from financial institutions like BlackRock is important in closing this gap, which is why their retreat from the global climate coalition is noteworthy. In 2020, the company’s CEO, Larry Fink, turned heads in the global financial community when he wrote that the risks of climate change were “compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance” and had become a “defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects”. The recent reversal weakens the signal for BlackRock’s clients, shareholders, and other financial institutions that watch the asset manager closely.
The most concerning part of the fracturing coalition, however, is its impact on influencing government policy.
Policies like carbon pricing, tax credits, climate investment taxonomies, and disclosure will determine whether financial institutions can achieve their climate targets. No longer having the world’s largest asset manager at the table may lessen the coalition’s impact and therefore slow the scale and speed of the transition, particularly if populist backlash against climate policy grows in North America.
To modify Larry Fink’s original 2020 clarion call, climate risk is still investment risk no matter what it’s called or who’s working to address it. But BlackRock’s departure sends an unfortunate signal at a critical time. This is something that could affect the long-term returns for all investors.
Everyone has an opinion on BlackRock and its climate advocacy but Larry Fink is running a business and he will never please all asset managers, that's for sure.
In June, Texas removed BlackRock from a blacklist after its climate policy rollback but others are harping on it, divesting their assets.
Interestingly, a BlackRock representative stated this in the Bloomberg article above:
PFZW has “always voted their portfolio with BlackRock themselves,” and BlackRock offers “eligible clients” the option to “participate in the stewardship of their assets,” the representative said.
That too makes you wonder what the fuss is all about since BlackRock allows clients to participate in the stewardship of their assets.
In Canada, where pension funds are governed independently, there is a strong commitment to sustainable investing despite Trump 2.0 but BlackRock remains an important asset manager with big mandates from all of Canada's large pension funds.
There is no divestment going on, not from BlackRock, not from fossil fuel (except for La Caisse) and the focus remains squarely on garnering high risk-adjusted returns to make sure there are more than enough assets to meet future liabilities.
The only thing I do know is there is a reorganization of BlackRock going on in Canada with leadership changes pending and that I recently applied for the position Director, Institutional - Canada and was promptly rejected (makes you wonder which idiots are screening these applications there).
Whatever, I've applied to hundreds of positions over the last 15 years that I'm eminently qualified for but keep getting rejected (I know why but will be diplomatic and not share details).
Truth is I shouldn't be a Director at BlackRock, with the knowledge and experience I have, I should be a Senior Managing Director at a Canadian pension fund pulling in millions every year but alas, I'm not, life goes on and the only person I answer to is the man in the mirror, and my wife and child, of course.
Below, Larry Fink, chairman and CEO of Blackrock, talks on stage at the 2025 Forbes Iconoclast Summit about the decisions that helped grow the firm into a multibillion dollar company.
Also, seven months ago, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink joined 'Squawk Box' to discuss the latest market trends, state of the economy, the company's decision to leave a net-zero group, investing on behalf of clients, and more.
Comments
Post a Comment