Introduction

The report examines how pension fund beneficiaries can influence investment decisions involving trade-offs between financial returns and social impact. It addresses a “democratic deficit” in financial intermediation and evaluates whether deliberative processes can reveal informed preferences for sustainable investing, particularly impact investing.

Institutional background: Mini-publics, maxi-publics, and legitimacy

The study combines a deliberative mini-public with a binding maxi-public vote. The mini-public involves a small, representative group engaging in structured discussions with expert input, while the maxi-public captures broader member preferences. This dual approach aims to balance informed deliberation with democratic legitimacy and scalability in pension fund decision-making.

Study1: Mini-public, survey design, and representativeness

Study 1 involves a three-day mini-public with 49 randomly selected pension members. Participants received expert briefings on sustainable investing, including ESG factors and trade-offs between returns and impact. Surveys before and after deliberation assessed knowledge, preferences, and expectations. The sample was broadly representative in demographics and economic preferences, supporting the validity of findings.

Study1: Mini-public survey result

Deliberation increased participants’ investment knowledge and shifted preferences. Deontological motivations declined from 34.9% to 9.3%, while consequentialist preferences rose from 20.9% to 44.2%. Participants became more focused on achieving environmental and social impact.

Support for expanding impact investing reached 85% after deliberation. Participants acknowledged potential lower returns but maintained neutral expectations overall. No majority supported increased divestment, indicating preference for strategies with measurable impact rather than procedural approaches.

Study2: Maxi-public survey design

Study 2 tested whether mini-public recommendations aligned with broader member preferences. Approximately 220,000 members were invited, with 13,619 responses (6.1% response rate). Participants voted on whether to expand (2–5%), maintain (1%), or stop (0%) impact investing.

Information treatments provided some participants with insights from the mini-public or peer responses to assess whether informed preferences could influence broader decision-making.

Study2: Maxi-public results

A plurality (41.5%) supported expanding impact investing, compared with 13.2% favouring discontinuation. Support persisted despite explicit disclosure of potential lower returns. The pension fund committed to increasing allocations by €300 million to €1.2 billion.

Support varied by demographics, with higher levels among women, older individuals, highly educated members, and those with strong social preferences. Political differences were evident, but information treatments increased support across groups, particularly among right-leaning participants.

Exposure to mini-public outcomes improved alignment with informed preferences, suggesting that communication of deliberative insights can reduce polarisation and enhance decision quality.

Conclusion

The findings demonstrate that combining deliberative mini-publics with binding maxi-public votes can reveal informed investor preferences and translate them into actionable investment decisions. Structured deliberation improves knowledge and shifts preferences towards impact-oriented investing, while large-scale voting ensures legitimacy. This approach enables pension funds to incorporate member values into sustainable investment strategies.