OECD Pensions Outlook 2024

7. Individual pension dashboards: Design, development and operation

Jessica Mosher

Abstract

This chapter presents good practices and lessons for the design and development of individual pension dashboards that provide users with information on their accumulated pensions. These lessons draw from the numerous international examples of such dashboards described in the chapter.

Individual pension dashboards that provide individuals with information on their accumulated pensions are expanding globally and have the potential to greatly improve communication to individuals about the retirement incomes they can expect.1 These platforms can offer an accessible and user-friendly format to engage individuals with their retirement planning and provide a comprehensive picture of retirement preparedness across different sources of retirement income. In addition, they can serve to make the operations and management of pensions easier and more efficient, and potentially provide relevant stakeholders with information to monitor the system’s success in delivering adequate pensions.

This chapter looks at some of the individual pension dashboards that have been developed or are being developed to improve retirement planning and the delivery of pensions.2 The first section summarises some of the different functionalities of these dashboards depending on the objectives for their development and use, and briefly describes their functions. The second section focuses on the design and content of dashboards, while the third section discusses operational considerations in their development. The fourth section discusses the importance of the continued evolution and monitoring of the success of the dashboard. The final section concludes with good practices and policy considerations for the development of individual pension dashboards relating to each of these elements. Annex 7.A details the elements included in each of the examples discussed in this report.3

7.1. Introduction to individual pension dashboards

Individual pension dashboards can have multiple functionalities. A key functionality is to provide individuals with a centralised point of access to view their accumulated pensions and have information about how much retirement income they can expect to have. Some platforms may also allow individuals to manage their retirement savings accounts and make contributions, transfers, or change investment strategies. Others may cater to the needs of multiple stakeholders, taking advantage of the technical infrastructure to facilitate back-office administration, such as tracking employer contributions, or to provide a source of data on a system’s coverage, participation, and results. Table 7.1 summarises the key functionalities of the dashboards described in this chapter along with the scope of pensions included.

Table 7.1. Summary of the scope and functionality of individual pension dashboards

Jurisdiction	Platform	Pillars covered	Functionality
Australia	myGov	2	Information, Limited account management
Belgium	Mypension.be	1, 2	Information, Data
Chile	Pension Simulator	2, 3	Information
Croatia	My Pension (Moja Mirovina)	1, 2 (3 planned)	Information
Denmark	PensionsInfo	1, 2, 3	Information
Estonia	Minu Pension	1, 2, 3	Information
Germany	Digitale Rentenübersicht	1, 2, 3	Information
Hong Kong, China	eMPF	2, ~3	Information, Data, Account management, Administrative functions
Ireland	PensionsVault	2, 3	Information
Israel	Pension Clearing House	2	Information
Latvia	Government Services Portal	1, 2	Information, Limited account management
Mexico	AFORE Movil	2	Information, Account management
Netherlands	Mijnpensioenoverzicht.nl	1, 2	Information
Norway	Norsk Pensjon	1, 2, 3	Information, Data
Slovak Republic	Orange Envelope	1,2,3	Information
Spain	Plataforma Digital Común	2 (partial)	Information, Data
Sweden	MinPension	1, 2, 3	Information
UK	Pensions Dashboard	1, 2, 3	Information

Source: See Annex Table 7.A.1 for the references for each of the platforms.

The functionality offered by an individual pension dashboard is linked to the purpose for which it is developed in the context of the design of the pension system. Several OECD countries have developed individual pension dashboards to provide a centralised source of information for individuals to see the pensions that they have accrued from multiple sources on a single platform. These platforms can also aim to help people understand what they need to do to increase their expected retirement income, thereby nudging them to change their investment strategy, save more and/or retire later. These dashboards often include information on accrued rights from public pensions (Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom), though not all also include information from voluntary personal pensions (Belgium, Croatia, Latvia, and the Netherlands currently do not). Some dashboards include information only on asset-backed pensions (Australia, Chile, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, Spain). In Spain, the platform currently only covers a subset of occupational pension funds.

Dashboards providing information to individuals about their defined contribution pension plans may also allow individuals to manage their accounts. The main purpose of the AFORE Movil application in Mexico is to increase pension coverage by facilitating the account management for members. In addition to providing information on account balances and performance, the app allows individuals to open an account, make contributions, change pension providers, and name their beneficiaries. In Australia, the myGov platform provides more limited functionality, but does allow individuals to consolidate their accounts and make transfers between providers. The Government Services Portal in Latvia allows users to request to change providers.

Digital platforms can also be used as a means for data exchange. The dashboard in Belgium is used to deliver statistical data, as well as to automate and optimise data flows to pension providers and improve their processes. In Norway, the pension dashboard also serves as a means to exchange data with the government so that the government can have the same information on its own website, and to provide data to Statistics Norway. Providers can also request data from the platform to include on their own websites. In Spain, the platform being developed for the new publicly-promoted occupational pension plans will provide supervisory bodies with a source of data on how the system is functioning.

Dashboards can also integrate all these functionalities. This is the case with eMPF in Hong Kong, China, which was developed with a view to allow members to view their retirement savings account information, but also to open a new account and make contributions and other transactions. The platform will also be used to manage the administrative functions of providers and will be a source of data for supervisors to monitor the system.

The content and design of the dashboard is driven by its purpose, even if the main functionality of the platform is only to provide information. In Belgium, for example, the dashboard has a legal mandate to increase the transparency of the system and allow individuals to access their personal information regarding their pensions. As such, the tool is primarily informational and does not aim to support decision-making for occupational pensions.4 The dashboard in Sweden, however, aims to provide information to improve decision-making, and thereby incorporates tools to help people understand the implications of different decisions they could make. In the United Kingdom, one aim in the ongoing development of the dashboard is to provide individuals with sufficient information to make informed decisions following the Pension Freedoms, though the focus to do so will likely be more on guiding users towards independent financial advice rather than providing elaborate projection tools. Subject to certain rules, projections and additional modelling tools may be included but will not allow the user to execute transactions directly from the dashboard. Dashboards can also aim to address the challenge of lost pension accounts that savers have forgotten about. For example, the United Kingdom’s dashboard will automatically show all of the user’s pension accounts in one place, even those they may not have been aware they had, though the platform will not allow the consolidation of a user’s accounts. However, digital platforms can also facilitate the consolidation of an individual’s accounts, as in Australia, where users can easily consolidate their accounts on the platform in addition to viewing them in a single place.

7.2. Design considerations for the content of individual pension dashboards

The scope, content and format of the interface through which users access their dashboard can have a significant influence on their use of and engagement with the platform. The design of the dashboard therefore needs to be carefully considered. The IOPS Good practices for designing, presenting, and supervising pension projections include good practices on both the content and format of pension projections shown on these platforms, and highlight many of the good practices discussed through the examples provided in this chapter (IOPS, 2022[1]).5

7.2.1. Scope

Ideally, individual pension dashboards would include information relating to all sources to finance retirement that users may have available to them.6 Including both public pay-as-you-go pensions as well as asset-backed pensions would allow individuals to see how much they can expect to have in total, and thereby more easily assess what actions they would need to take to achieve their desired retirement outcomes.

Nevertheless, the process and calculations needed to integrate public pensions and asset-backed pensions, as well as mandatory and voluntary plans, normally differ. The integration of the public and private sources of retirement income may need to be considered separately at the initial stage. Indeed, many European countries only have dashboards showing information on accrued rights for the public pension (Austria, Czechia, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal), with several planning to add information on asset-backed pensions (EIOPA, 2021[2]). Belgium’s Mypension.be started with information on the public pension only, and later added information on occupational pensions. The information for these two different sources of pensions are updated at different frequencies, with the public pension updated once every three months, and the occupational pension updated only once per year. Additionally, the platform currently shows the pension from the two sources separately rather than aggregated. The dashboard in Latvia also shows pension entitlements from the public pay-as-you-go and defined contribution pensions separately. The rules of the public pension can also make a personalised calculation more complex than for asset-backed pensions, particularly where the public pension is means-tested against other sources of income in retirement, as in Denmark for example.

Data quality can also differ between pension sources. In Sweden, it took the dashboard longer to obtain good quality data from the public pension than it did from private providers. However, prior to implementation, the need for agreement on standards regarding the format in which private providers submit the data can take longer, as in the United Kingdom.

Personal voluntary pensions can also be more challenging to integrate into a dashboard. This is the case especially where financial accounts are not automatically linked to a common national ID number, because they are more dispersed and not connected through a single employer or provider. While Belgium’s Mypension.be originally intended to integrate personal pensions, it has not yet done so.

7.2.2. Content

Individual pension dashboards often automatically link to an individual’s pensions so they can see their consolidated information simply by logging in. Some dashboards also allow users to add additional accounts or financial resources that may not be automatically linked, as in Chile and Sweden. Sweden even allows users to input information regarding their housing assets. Denmark and Norway invite users to contact their pension providers if one of their accounts does not show up in the dashboard. Denmark and the Netherlands allow users to include their spouse’s pension accounts in the dashboard to facilitate household retirement planning. Other dashboards – typically those that are privately developed without government involvement – require that users manually link their pension accounts to the dashboard, as in Estonia, Ireland, and the Slovak Republic.

The minimum information provided by dashboards is the amount of pensions accrued at the time of the request. This amount is stated in terms of accumulated assets for asset-backed individual retirement savings, or as pension income for public benefits or asset-backed defined benefit plans.

Most dashboards also include an estimate of expected pension income at the statutory retirement age to provide individuals with a general idea of how much they can expect to get. One exception is the myGov platform in Australia, whose primary objective is to help individuals find all their superannuation accounts and to consolidate smaller accounts, rather than helping them to have a view on how much they will have at retirement. Australia provides a retirement income calculator as a separate service on the Moneysmart site. Similarly, Latvia provides a pension calculator on its My Pension (Mana Pensija) site where individuals can manually input their accumulated pensions for each source to receive an estimate of future retirement income.

Some dashboards also show static projections for retirement income under different assumptions. The dashboards in Chile, the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic show expected retirement income under good and bad investment scenarios, as will Belgium’s in 2026. Dashboards in the United Kingdom will show both currently accrued values and projected values that assume that the current level of contributions will continue until retirement. They will only show the information submitted by the providers and will not allow the user to manipulate the information to model different scenarios or projections.

Many dashboards also include a calculator function where users can adjust certain parameters to see how this could impact their expected retirement income in addition to static projections of retirement income. The most common parameter that platforms allow users to change is retirement age, as this is the simplest parameter, and it allows users to see how much they can get depending on how much longer they will work. Belgium, Chile, the Netherlands and Sweden also allow users to modify their employment characteristics, such as hours worked or salary. In addition to a simple calculator with these basic parameters, Norway provides an advanced calculator where individuals can see the impact of their marital status, which affects the public pension benefit, of taking partial retirement while continuing to work, and of any employment outside of Norway. Chile also allows users to include spouses and/or dependent children in the calculation. Denmark is considering allowing users to vary the age at which they begin taking different types of pensions to accommodate partial retirement plans. The Netherlands, where pension assets must be split with ex-spouses, allows people to see the impact that a divorce has on their pension. Belgium is considering including the impact of taking parental leave on retirement income calculations. While most calculators only allow the adjustment of parameters that individuals can control, the Minu Pension app in Estonia allows users to see the impact of different investment return scenarios. Sweden’s MinPension includes a more detailed retirement-planning feature available to users over the age of 54 to calculate the impact of different retirement ages and the retirement income options possible. While it does not allow users to implement the strategy chosen, it does provide information regarding the steps that users need to take to do so.

Most dashboards show a single estimated income at retirement in real terms, so that individuals can compare the estimate with their current salary. A main shortfall in this approach is that individuals do not see how their purchasing power may erode over retirement. Sweden is considering how to provide this information to users.

Many dashboards provide additional information that can be useful to users beyond the minimum requirements of providing basic information about pensions accumulated and expected retirement income. Several provide details about the amount of contributions that individuals have made into their plans. This is normally shown on a per-plan basis, with some dashboards like the Orange Envelope in the Slovak Republic tracking the amount and date of each contribution made. Other dashboards show estimated benefits both gross and net of tax, which can be useful for users to get a sense of how much disposable income they will have in retirement. Denmark provides information on the tax treatment for each source of retirement income, indicating whether the income is tax exempt or the percentage at which it will be taxed. Details regarding survivor or disability benefits are also commonly shown, as these types of benefits are often linked to individuals’ pension plans.

A few dashboards, mostly those having the objective in part to support investment or provider choice, provide information on investment returns and the fees charged by providers. For example, Australia allows users to select up to four funds to compare their performance and fees. The platform also classifies funds as performing or underperforming based on their relative net investment returns over the last nine years. Latvia’s My Pension website also provides users with comparable information on fees and performance of defined contribution pension plans, though this is separate from where users can find information on their own account.

While no dashboard currently includes information relating to the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) characteristics of pension investments, both Norway and Sweden are actively considering how to integrate this aspect in the future.

Many dashboards provide additional functionality beyond the provision of information on the platform. The most common feature is the ability to download a summary of the information for individuals to share with their financial advisor. In Denmark, for example, the file can be transferred directly from the platform to the provider.

Other functionalities facilitate administrative tasks for the user. The platform in Belgium allows users to opt for email communications about their pension, and to track the administrative status of their requests and their communications with their provider. Ireland’s PensionsVault allows users to store all their pension documentation. Israel and Sweden allow users to request a power of attorney. Mexico allows users to open a new pension account and to register their beneficiaries.

Other platforms also allow for more detailed management of pension accounts. Australia’s MyGov allows users to consolidate pension accounts, change providers, and apply for compassionate release of their funds. Mexico’s AFORE Movil allows users to make voluntary contributions, change providers, and withdraw voluntary contributions. Estonia’s Minu Pension also allows for contribution payments and transfers between funds.

7.2.3. Format

The format of the digital platform and how information is presented to users is extremely important to engage users and make sure they understand the information provided and make use of the platform as intended.

Employing a layered presentation of information is useful to avoid information overload, where individuals are presented with more information than they can process, and to highlight the most important information that users need to know. The first layer presents the key information about pensions, namely how much users currently have and their expected income in retirement. The interface then allows individuals to click to drill down to more detailed information regarding the breakdown of the summary figures by type of pension or by plan, and then to the specific details of each plan. With this approach, individuals can choose to look for additional information if they have the time and willingness to do so. This avoids deterring those who just want to have a quick overview of their accrued pensions and who would be more likely to be overwhelmed by a large amount of information. PensionInfo in Denmark, for example, allows users to expand information on the type of pension payment to show the different plans, and then to see additional details for each specific plan.

Ideally, accrued pensions are communicated on an aggregate basis as well as broken down by source of pension. This would allow individuals to have a full-picture view of how much income they can expect in retirement and to plan accordingly. Nevertheless, a few dashboards, such as the ones in Belgium and the Slovak Republic, present the pay-as-you-go public and asset-backed pensions on separate tabs. This is something that Belgium would like to change, to show both pension sources in the same place on the dashboard.

Dashboards may better achieve their goals if they avoid using technical vocabulary that most individuals would not normally use, and rely on simple and relatable terms. Terms like ‘lump-sum’ or ‘annuity’ may not be commonly understood. Instead, terms or phrases that make the meaning of these technical terms more obvious are more likely to be effective at getting people to understand the information presented. Denmark’s dashboard refers to lump-sums as a ‘once and for all’ payment, and annuity income as ‘over a number of years’ or for ‘as long as you live’. One of Israel’s private dashboards uses the term ‘payments’ instead of contributions. The dashboard in the Slovak Republic explains the percentiles of the simulations of future investment performance as ‘optimistic/sunny days scenario’, ‘neutral/ordinary days scenario’, and ‘pessimistic/rainy days scenario’.

Visuals can also help individuals to better understand the information being presented. Pie charts are often used to show the breakdown of accrued pensions by type of pension or plan. Several dashboards, such as in Denmark and Sweden, show the breakdown of expected income in retirement as bar charts, which also show the development of the pension income received over time from each source. Users can also slide an indicator for retirement age up and down to immediately see the impact of advancing or delaying retirement. Additionally, Sweden indicates an individual’s life expectancy by a small triangle for them to visually see how long they can expect to receive their income in retirement on average.

In recognition that some individuals are more visual while others prefer to see numbers presented in a table format, several dashboards also provide the option of seeing one or the other. Norway’s dashboard shows a table below the figure depicting the same information on the amount of expected retirement income each year by source.

Visuals can also help individuals to better understand difficult concepts. Slovakia’s Orange Envelope shows a traffic light to indicate whether users can expect a decrease in their standard of living based on the expected replacement rate. Green means they will have a replacement rate of at least 65%, whereas red implies a replacement rate of under 50%. Denmark uses an ice cream cone analogy to explain the impact that inflation can have on the purchasing power of retirement income, with the number of scoops of ice cream you can get decreasing over time. The Netherlands uses a navigation metaphor to help people understand the concept of uncertainty in investment outcomes. Chile presents optimistic and pessimistic scenarios around the expected outcome at different retirement ages in both absolute terms and visually on a bar chart.

Several dashboards also aim to convey how an individual’s income will change in retirement compared to their current salary. The Slovakian dashboard communicates an expected replacement rate, which is the ratio of expected retirement income over current salary. However, many individuals have difficulty understanding percentages. Other dashboards therefore tend to use visuals or absolute references to convey the change in income. Sweden shows the individual’s income by age before and through retirement, so users can see the change in income at retirement and over time. Denmark and Norway indicate the current salary level with a line added to the graph of retirement income which allows individuals to easily compare what they can expect to get compared to what they have now. The Netherlands provides the user with an absolute value of the difference between their current income and their future retirement income, which can be a more relatable figure for them as it is more easily comparable to their current spending and budget.

Other features can nudge individuals towards information to help them improve their retirement outcomes. Sweden’s dashboard has a tool that users can use to compare their expected retirement income with other users in the country with a similar profile. Users then get asked how they feel about this information, and can click the corresponding happy, neutral or sad face. If they click the sad face, they will be directed to information on how they can improve their retirement outcomes. Sweden found that rather than make people worried, providing information on how they could improve their situation kept them engaged.

Design needs to also consider the format in which individuals will access the platform. While mobile apps have the benefit of connecting with a wider proportion of the population, the smaller screen size can make it difficult to design an interface that can effectively communicate all the information available.

Nevertheless, certain formats can be more or less effective at engaging different groups of the population. Initially, Sweden found that the dashboard’s main users were those with high interest in and knowledge of pensions already, namely higher income males who have financial advisors, which was not the demographic group targeted with the platform. Sweden introduced simplifications in the format and seamless logon to the dashboard to better target low-interest groups. It also found that it could improve engagement by tailoring the content for different groups, not necessarily the format. For example, it created a retirement planning tool for those approaching retirement.

Different age groups also tend to access the dashboards in different ways. Younger people are more likely to access the platform via a mobile app. In the Netherlands, 40% of users access the dashboard from their mobile, and these users also tend to be younger. Younger people generally tend to be less interested in the details of their pensions. Indeed, the majority of people who consult the pension dashboards tend to be over the age of 45. This also highlights the importance of layering the information on the dashboard so that younger, less engaged users can quickly access the information most interesting and useful for them. Sweden found that younger people were less likely to drill down into the details of their pension plans. Middle-aged people were more likely to access the platform via a web search, so it also added more information signposting to the platform on its website to target information for these individuals. Chile found that younger users have less knowledge about the pension system and had more difficulty in filling out required information for the projections, whereas older individuals had a harder time navigating the tool and finding the definitions of the terms used (Antolin and Fuentes, 2012[3]).

Differences in usage are also observed by gender. Sweden found that women tended to use the dashboard for longer but with less frequency, and showed more hesitancy in making decisions with the information.

7.3. Operational considerations for the development of individual pension dashboards

There are numerous operational aspects to consider when developing an individual dashboard for pensions to ensure its efficiency, cost-effectiveness, security, and proper functioning. These include the mandatory or voluntary nature of the participation of pension providers, the ownership and operation of the platform, the governance structure, the financing of the platform, the digital architecture, and the platform’s promotion. Table 7.2 summarises the main operational aspects relating to the development of the digital platforms referenced in this report.

Table 7.2. Summary of the key operational aspects of individual pension dashboards

Jurisdiction	Platform	Year established	Pillars covered	Initiative	Participation	Number of providers	Ownership	Governance	Financing	Centralised database
Australia	myGov	2013	2	Public	Via tax office	~100	Public	Public	Public	Yes
Belgium	Mypension.be	2010	1, 2	Public	Mandatory	212	Public	Public	Public	Yes
Chile	Pension Simulator	2012	2, 3	Public	Mandatory	7	Public (+ Private)	Public	Public	Yes
Croatia	My Pension (Moja Mirovina)	2024	1, 2 (3 planned)	Public	Mandatory	4	Public	Public	Public	No
Denmark	PensionsInfo	1999	1, 2, 3	Private	Voluntary	100	Private	Public-Private	Private	No
Estonia	Minu Pension	2019	1, 2, 3	Private		5	Private	Private	Private	Only for 1st pillar, if requested
Germany	Digitale Rentenübersicht	2023	1, 2, 3	Public	Mandatory	~450	Public	Public-Private	Public	No
Hong Kong, China	eMPF	2024	2, ~3	Public	Mandatory	13	Public	Public	Public	Yes
Ireland	PensionsVault		2, 3	Private	Manual input		Private	Private	Private
Israel	Pension Clearing House	2012	2	Public	Mandatory	~100	Public owned outsourced to private	Public	Members	Yes
Latvia	Government Services Portal		1, 2	Public	Mandatory	9	Public	Public
Mexico	AFORE Movil	2017	2	Public	Mandatory	10	Public-Private	Public	Public
Netherlands	Mijnpensioenoverzicht.nl	2011	1, 2	Public-Private	Mandatory	~200	Public-Private	Public-Private	Private	No
Norway	Norsk Pensjon	2008	1, 2, 3	Public-Private	Voluntary	100	Private	Public-Private	Private	No
Slovak Republic	Orange Envelope	2019	1, 2, 3	Private	Manual input	5	Private	Private	Private	Yes
Spain	Plataforma Digital Común	2024	2 (partial)	Public	Mandatory	5	Public	Public	Public	Yes
Sweden	MinPension	2004	1, 2, 3	Public-Private	Voluntary	~30	Private	Public-Private	Public-Private	Yes
UK	Pensions Dashboard	2026	1, 2	Public-Private	Mandatory	~3 000-4 000	Public (+ Private)	Public (+ Private)	Private	No

7.3.1. Participation of pension providers

Individual pension dashboards owned by the government seem more likely to require mandatory participation from private providers. This is the case in Belgium; Chile; Hong Kong, China; Croatia; Germany; Israel; Latvia; Mexico; the Netherlands; Spain; and the United Kingdom. However, digital platforms that are owned by the private sector, but where the government is involved in the governance of the platform – such as in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden – have succeeded in achieving high coverage through voluntary participation, though this usually involves pressure from the government and significant initial support from the industry’s largest players. In Denmark, PensionsInfo began as a private initiative, and initial coverage was only 10%. Nevertheless, more providers joined in each year, reaching 30% coverage in 2007, at which point political pressure was used to encourage the abstaining providers to join to avoid mandated participation. PensionsInfo now covers 99% of the market in Denmark. Norway has succeeded in obtaining 99% coverage for occupational pension funds for private-sector workers, with only small providers not participating. In contrast, Mijnpensioenoverzicht in the Netherlands began as a voluntary collaboration between the government and the three largest players, but participation by all players was eventually mandated.

The number of pension providers likely plays a larger role in whether or not participation needs to be mandatory. A large number of providers makes it more difficult to agree on the common data standards necessary to facilitate the operation of the digital platform. Countries having over around 100 providers are more likely to require mandatory participation. Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, where participation is mandated, have around 450, 200 and 3 000-4 000 providers, respectively, compared to around 100 for Denmark and Norway and only around 30 for Sweden. Despite the relatively small number of providers in Hong Kong, China, of 13, they mandated participation because the providers were initially reluctant to change their administrative processes and adopt the new common platform. In Spain, only providers approved to offer publicly promoted occupational pension funds are required to connect to the platform, which is viewed as a way to ensure the quality and accessibility of pension information for the participants of plans connected to these funds.

Private providers can nevertheless have incentives to participate voluntarily because of the benefits that this can have for their members. In Sweden, providers can use the dashboard to discuss with their members about their pensions in a more engaging and comprehensive way, and at lower cost than they could do by developing a tool on their own. In Norway, providers can get the data from the dashboard to present it on their own portals for their customers. In Denmark, individuals can obtain their provider’s contact details from the dashboard and contact them directly to obtain information even if this provider does not participate in the dashboard. In this way there is also pressure from peers and members for providers to participate in order to remain competitive and offer quality services.

7.3.2. Ownership and operations

The ownership and operations of pension dashboards can involve public or private entities, or a combination of both with varying levels of participation. Dashboards that are owned and operated by public sector institutions are also often managed by existing public institutions. The myGov platform in Australia, which provides information and consolidation abilities for Australians’ superannuation accounts, is owned and operated by the Australian Taxation Office. Chile’s Pension Simulator is operated by the Chilean Superintendence of Pensions, but the development of the platform was outsourced to external providers, and providers are allowed to develop their own pension simulator as long as they follow the specifications required by the regulator. Spain’s Common Digital Platform is owned and managed by the Social Security Office, while Croatia’s My Pension platform is managed by the Central Registry of Affiliates (REGOS). The individual pension dashboard in Latvia is accessed via the government portal which provides a wide range of public services to the population.

Alternatively, publicly owned dashboards can instead rely on specialised public or semi-public institutions to manage operations. Such models can promote the independence of the platform and reduce the risk of conflicts of interest. Mypension.be in Belgium is jointly owned by three public entities: the Federal Pension Service, the National Institute for Social Security of the Self-employed, and Sigedis. Sigedis is a non-profit entity funded by the government that provides the technology-based solutions for all operational aspects involving individual data, including database management and data collection. In Germany, the independent entity managing the pay-as-you-go public pension, Deutsche Rentenversicherung, created the division Zentrale Stelle für die Digitale Rentenübersicht (ZfDR), to fulfil its legal mandate to develop and operate the dashboard. The publicly provided Pensions Dashboard in the UK is being developed by the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS), which is an independent body of the Department for Work and Pensions, though providers will also be able to develop their own versions of the dashboard. MaPS expects to outsource many of the technical aspects of operations to tendered providers. The eMPF platform in Hong Kong, China will be built and operated by a fully owned subsidiary of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA). The initial development of the platform will be outsourced to an external contractor, who will transfer operations back to the eMPF once the platform is successfully up and running.

Several dashboards are managed via a public-private partnership. Public-private partnerships facilitate co-operation among the stakeholders and have the benefit of involving private providers who will be required to provide data to the dashboard and already have the experience and know-how of managing their data. Such partnerships can also lead to cost efficiencies by leveraging the knowledge and capabilities of the private entities. The AFORE Movil application in Mexico was developed by the pension regulator CONSAR and is operated jointly with the private sector. Nevertheless, most public-private ventures tend to rely on external service providers for much of their development and operations. In the Netherlands, the Pension Regulator Foundation has legal authority from the government to run the Mijnpensioenoverzicht dashboard, but the functions of the dashboard are largely delegated to external providers, who include a pensions consultancy, a digital provider, and a specialised creative communication provider. In Sweden, MinPension is run by a not-for-profit subsidiary of Insurance Sweden but is run as a consortium with the public Swedish Pensions Agency and is jointly financed by both institutions. MinPension, which has 14 staff, works with many external IT providers to develop and run the platform, but is considering bringing some of this expertise in-house due to the lack of pensions knowledge in the IT institutions. The Pension Clearing House in Israel is publicly owned, but its operations are fully outsourced to private entities.

Dashboards that are owned and developed fully by private pension fund associations can either run operations in-house or outsource them to external providers. PensionsInfo in Denmark is owned and operated by Insurance & Pensions Denmark, the industry association. The Norsk Pensjon dashboard in Norway, which is jointly owned by the largest life insurance companies, has only four staff, and therefore outsources all operations.

Other dashboards that have been developed independently of the government are generally fully owned and operated by the private entity responsible for their development. This is the case for the Minu Pension app in Estonia, the PensionsVault service being developed in Ireland, and the Orange Envelope dashboard in the Slovak Republic.

While most dashboards developed with government involvement result in a single access point through which all individuals go to consult their pension information, Israel and the United Kingdom allow private providers to also develop dashboards relying on the same data architecture. In Israel, the government provides the Pension Clearing House, through which all providers are mandated to submit any request for information. Individuals can request their information directly through the clearinghouse, which is fully operated by a private company winning the tender from the government, or through a privately-owned platform that connects to the clearinghouse to obtain the requested data. In the United Kingdom, the public dashboard will be run by the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS), but private institutions will also be able to develop dashboards that connect to the same digital architecture. In both Israel and the United Kingdom, the intention is that individuals will be allowed to choose the service that best suits their needs and preferences.

7.3.3. Governance structure

The governance structure of dashboards that are fully publicly owned is often also public, though it can sometimes involve the private sector in an advisory role. In Belgium, the dashboard is jointly governed by the three entities owning the platform, though the Federal Pension Service tends to take the lead as it manages the aspects related to the public pension. In addition, the social partners and the Minister for Pensions contribute to the development of the high-level vision relating to communication. In Israel, while the operations are fully managed by the private company Swiftness Ltd. who has the exclusive mandate to manage the clearinghouse, the company is supervised and controlled by the Insurance and Savings Capital Markets Authority. In Spain, the Social Security Office governs the Common Digital Platform. In the United Kingdom, the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) will be in charge of the governance of the public dashboard, in part because it will be in charge of making any changes to the data standards affecting all providers so representation by the private sector could present a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom does expect that there will be a sub-committee that will include private sector representatives to discuss data standards and make recommendations to the governing body. In contrast, the governance of the dashboard in Germany includes both public and private sector representatives, with a steering committee that includes representatives of consumer protection organisations, the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the Federal Ministry of Finance, as well as representatives of all three pension pillars. In addition, the Steering Committee regularly consults with five advisory bodies composed of technical experts in relevant fields.

Where the dashboards are at least partly owned by the private sector and the government has been involved in their development, both the public and private sectors are normally represented in the governance structure. In Denmark, where the industry association Insurance & Pensions Denmark owns the dashboard, two ministries are represented on the board of directors which is made up of 11 people. In the Netherlands, the dashboard is run by the Pension Regulator Foundation, which is made up of representatives from the pension and insurance associations as well as the Social Insurance Bank. The Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs is an observer at all Board meetings, and sub-committees advise the Board on the topics of communication, IT, and pension schemes. In Norway, where the dashboard is run by a private industry-owned entity, the Board is made up of three representatives from pension providers and two independent members, while the social partners, government, and other stakeholders are represented on the advisory board. In Sweden, the Board includes representatives from the Swedish Pensions Agency, the National Government Employee Pensions Board, as well as representatives from the private sector.

7.3.4. Financing

The private sector often fully finances the dashboard, even when the government has been involved in the initiative to develop it. In the Netherlands, the dashboard is financed through annual fees paid by the pension providers in proportion to their membership size. In Norway, providers finance the dashboard on a per-request basis, with half of the proceeds coming from providers sending data to meet individual requests, and the other half coming from providers making requests to obtain data for their own platforms. In Denmark, providers pay an upfront fee when joining the dashboard and then an additional fee paid on an annual basis. In the United Kingdom, the public dashboard will be financed by a levy on the financial services industry, and providers of private dashboards will pay an application fee as well as an annual fee that intends to cover the costs of supervision.

It is uncommon for costs to be shared between the public and private sectors. However, the MinPension dashboard in Sweden is financed equally by MinPension and the Swedish Pension Agency, and operates as a consortium.

It is also uncommon for costs to be borne by members, as publicly managed dashboards are normally free to access. In Israel, however, members pay a small application fee as a function of the frequency with which they would like to receive their information.

Fully public initiatives are normally entirely financed by the public sector. The eMPF platform in Hong Kong, China is a public initiative, and as such is financed by the government. Initial set up costs are around USD 630 million, a relatively large amount given the broad scope of the platform and its multiple functionalities.7 Not all public bodies have a dedicated budget for the set-up and operations of their digital platform, however. For example, in Spain the Common Digital Platform is financed from the general budget of the Social Security Office.

7.3.5. Digital architecture

The implementation and design of dashboards must consider three key issues relating to their digital architecture: the standardisation of data formats, data protection, and data storage.

Data standardisation

Having common standards for the submission of data is crucial for a dashboard to operate efficiently and to provide accurate information to individuals. This requires all providers to agree upon common data standards and the format in which they will send their data to the platform.

Agreeing upon the common data standard can take time but is necessary for the success of the dashboard. In Sweden, it took between two and five years for providers to send consistently good data, highlighting the importance of establishing robust information standards from the beginning.

Having existing standards for the information shown on pension statements or for pension projections can facilitate agreement between providers. This was the case in the Netherlands, where providers had already issued standardised statements and projections. Denmark also had existing standards and a methodology for pension projections. As a result, it did not need to mandate any data standards, and it considers new standards as optional until all providers are able to adapt to them. In contrast, given the large number of providers in the United Kingdom, data standards had to be mandated and all providers are obliged to comply with the standards established by the MaPS. Because of the possibility of multiple dashboards, the United Kingdom also had to agree on design standards to set out the minimum requirements for the information that digital platforms must show in order to ensure consistency in the information presented across the dashboards.

In submitting the data, there also needs to be a unique way to link pension accounts to the individual. National identification numbers are a convenient way to easily do this. Where these IDs are also already linked to financial accounts in the country, this can also ensure that the individual will automatically be able to see all their accounts, even if they had previously lost track of them or forgotten about them. In Australia, the dashboard is housed in the tax office and linked to the tax ID of individuals. In Denmark, national IDs were already connected to all financial accounts, which made it very easy to link the data to the dashboard. In contrast, the Netherlands relied upon individuals’ names and birthdays when it first started its dashboard, but eventually linked accounts with individuals’ social security number. The United Kingdom plans to rely on individuals’ characteristics, as financial accounts are not necessarily linked to ID numbers.

Data protection

Identity verification is a crucial aspect of data protection, as it will ensure that the information that is being sent has been requested by the individual to whom it belongs. Digital platforms therefore need to have a secure log-in requirement to verify the identity of the person requesting the information. The AFORE Movil app in Mexico allows users to verify their identities through facial recognition. The United Kingdom incorporates an identity service that confirms the ID of the individual requesting the data through the platform. People in Belgium can connect to their platform with an electronic ID card. In Germany, members need to have a digital German ID, which may have deterred some people from registering as it represents an additional administrative barrier for access (Serenelli, 2023[4]). By contrast, in Latvia users have a range of options to verify their identity: they can use one of five qualified means of electronic identification, or alternatively use the same identification details they use with their provider. In Israel, individuals can request a unique code from the digital platform that they can communicate to someone such as an advisor to give them power of attorney to request data from the digital platform on their behalf.

There are normally additional requirements for providers to ensure the data used by the dashboard is secure. In Denmark, individuals wishing to share their data via the platform with their provider or other financial intermediary may only do so if the provider is a member of the industry association and that they comply and abide by relevant laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Providers must also have a secure login to their own sites. In the United Kingdom, providers must abide by a code of connection and guarantee minimum standards with respect to data security.

To comply with data protection laws such as GDPR, dashboards may require explicit individual consent for the provider to transfer their data to the platform. Sweden and the United Kingdom both require individual consent from people using the dashboard. Denmark requires consent if individuals wish to transfer their information from the platform to their provider or another financial intermediary. Norway requires a signed agreement between the platform and the provider to exchange data and information. In contrast, members accessing the platform in Spain must do so using an electronic certificate that a security platform with everyone’s IDs would provide, though users can also use other means of identification such as a mobile key, permanent key, or PIN key.

Minimum standards for data security are necessary where multiple dashboards are allowed. In the United Kingdom, a governance register will ensure that digital platforms meet the required security and performance standards.

Data storage

There are two main approaches to store data for dashboards. The first is to have a centralised database where providers send their data and to which the dashboard directly connects. Dashboards in Australia; Belgium; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Spain, and Sweden rely on a centralised database. The second approach is to offer live access to the databases stored by the providers. For this approach, when an individual connects to the dashboard, it queries the databases for all providers to find the plans belonging to the individual and returns the information for plans matching the individual’s ID to the dashboard for consultation. Once the individual logs off, their personal data is deleted. This is the approach taken in Croatia, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. However, in Germany individual users may choose to store their data for up to five years after their last login.

Having a centralised database is easier and less costly to implement, but it can present a larger risk for data security because all the data is stored in one place. This is why Denmark eventually changed its initial approach of having a centralised database to one with live access. Sweden is also moving towards a less-centralised hybrid model, where larger providers are beginning to provide data in real time.

Having a centralised database can also increase the delay to update data on the platform. While live-access structures return updated information in real time, data has to be uploaded to the centralised database at regular intervals. In Belgium, data relating to the public pension is updated less frequently than for occupational pensions. In Israel, providers send the data only when requested by the user. They are required to send the data within three business days, but in practice they are able to send it within four hours.

Nevertheless, centralised databases do have some advantages. They can make it easier to use the data for purposes other than providing information to individuals. In Belgium, for example, the law explicitly allows the data to be used for other studies. Another advantage of a centralised database is that it ensures the availability of data when individuals request it, because it is not dependent on the technical availability of the sources of data.

7.3.6. Promoting awareness and use

Individuals need to be aware of the possibility of accessing their pension information through the dashboard and make use of its functionalities for such a platform to achieve the objectives of developing it. In Mexico, the pension regulator runs regular communication campaigns to get people to use the AFORE Movil app. In Hong Kong, China, the MPFA ran awareness campaigns leading up to the launch of its platform, which will be followed by marketing campaigns that will aim to educate and train the population on the dashboard in addition to promoting its use.

The channel of communication used may also need to consider the type of user targeted. In Sweden, those with low knowledge and interest in pensions were targeted via telephone or employer meetings rather than via internet channels that work better for those more inclined to find out about their pension.

The entity managing the dashboard may not necessarily have a budget to promote it to potential users. In these cases, providers themselves can play a significant role in encouraging their members to access the platform. Providers can have a natural incentive to do so. In Sweden, the dashboard is a useful tool for providers to consult with their customers about their retirement planning, and it is much cheaper for them to refer to the common dashboard rather than develop one themselves. In Denmark, Pensions & Insurance Denmark does not have any budget for marketing, but the dashboard is promoted by both banks and providers, in part because banks request information on pensions for mortgage applications. Belgium and the Netherlands have made it mandatory for providers to signpost the dashboard in the statements they provide to members. Providers in Chile who have not developed their own pension simulator are required to provide a link directly to the regulator’s simulator.

Employee representatives can also play a role in promoting the awareness of the digital platforms as a way to assist in the retirement planning of their membership. In Sweden, unions promote the dashboard to their members.

7.4. Evolution and monitoring of individual pension dashboards

The development of an individual pension dashboard is often an ongoing endeavour, with improvements to the platform made gradually over time in response to feedback and observations about what could be working better or what may be missing. The dashboard’s development is often informed through the monitoring of metrics that indicate usage, engagement, and ultimate improvement in retirement outcomes that indicate to what extent its design has been successful in achieving its objectives.

7.4.1. Continued development

The development of an individual pension dashboard can be a long and iterative process. Many countries have gradually improved their dashboards as they learned from experience and identified aspects not considered in the original design. In Sweden, 95% of the initial platform was discarded and rebuilt after two years as the dashboard did not achieve the desired objectives. In 2017, the dashboard also underwent large changes to its interface to improve user experience. With respect to projections, more complex tools, namely a dynamic retirement income calculator where individuals can change input assumptions, and a retirement planning tool available for those aged over 54, have gradually been added. In Denmark, the PensionsInfo website has been upgraded five times with gradual improvements. The digital platform in Belgium has gradually expanded coverage and improved personalisation, content, and the format of the interface over time. The Common Digital Platform in Spain is starting very simply, initially showing only contributions and assets accumulated. However, a projection tool on the platform to show expected future retirement incomes is expected to be developed. In Germany, the dashboard started operating as a pilot project where providers could connect voluntarily and test the portal with citizens interested in doing so. The regular operation of the dashboard began in December 2023 on a voluntary basis, though providers have since been required to connect to the platform.

7.4.2. Impact assessment

The performance of the dashboard should be regularly monitored so that improvements can be made to increase user access, engagement, and ultimately improve retirement outcomes. It is important to monitor the use of the dashboard by age, gender and income to assess its success in promoting inclusiveness. Women, young adults, and lower income groups tend to be the groups with most difficulties in engaging with pensions.

User testing is a useful approach to determine how to improve the content and format of platforms to better engage different groups. Sweden is continuously testing to improve the user experience of its site. Denmark also does a lot of user testing, with one of the next objectives being to improve how the impact of purchasing power is presented. EIOPA did some user testing in Italy, Spain and Romania to assess comprehensibility and engagement, and notably found that consumers tended to prefer bar charts to donut charts in showing the breakdown of their expected retirement income (EIOPA, 2021[5]). Chile has conducted experiments to test how users respond to personalised information, showing that this had a short-term effect of increasing voluntary savings (Fuentes et al., 2023[6]).

Impact assessment can also include looking at how the information provided in the dashboard is working to improve retirement outcomes for individuals. For example, the AFORE Movil app in Mexico succeeded in increasing the number of accounts for voluntary savings and facilitated the opening of retirement savings accounts for independent workers new to the system. In Sweden, the dashboard has significantly increased the proportion of people reporting that they feel they can make well-informed choices about their future pension. It has facilitated retirement planning by showing people how they can take different pensions at different times in line with their needs, and more people are now working longer as part-time employees. The dashboard has also led to more people opting for life annuities, perhaps because the dashboard shows how retirement income can change over time.

7.5. Good practices and lessons for the development of individual pension dashboards for pensions

This section presents good practices and lessons for jurisdictions looking to develop an individual pension dashboard to facilitate individuals’ access to information about their pensions and their expected future retirement income. These are derived from the examples discussed in this chapter and cover all aspects of development from the initial conception of what the dashboard aims to achieve, through to its design, development and impact assessment.

7.5.1. Purpose and functionality

The purpose of an individual pension dashboard should be clearly defined and its functionalities established to achieve that purpose.

Individual pension dashboards should provide functionalities in line with a clear purpose and objective

The purpose for the establishment of the dashboard and the objectives it aims to achieve should guide its functionality and content. Dashboards intending to improve the provision of information and increase awareness about pensions and retirement income should ensure that the information included is relevant and useful for the targeted user groups. Those intending to aid in decision making should provide tools for users to understand the implications of their decisions. Dashboards intending to make the management of pensions more accessible and efficient should allow users to initiate transactions from the platform and/or facilitate the exchange of data.

7.5.2. Content and design

Individual pension dashboards should include content that is relevant and useful for individuals’ retirement planning and should present information in a way that is easily understandable and effective in engaging users.

Dashboards should automatically include all sources of retirement income where possible and relevant

Public pensions, occupational pensions, and personal pensions should ideally automatically be included in dashboards aiming to provide information to individuals about their retirement and to help improve their retirement outcomes. This will allow individuals to have a full view of the retirement income they can expect to receive and the different sources that will contribute to it. Including public pensions in addition to asset-backed pensions will be particularly important for individuals to have a holistic view of their situation.

Nevertheless, it may not be possible to include all sources of pensions from the outset, and many jurisdictions have included additional sources over time. For pensions that cannot be included automatically, as is often the case for personal pensions, the dashboard may allow users to manually add this information themselves.

Dashboards should provide an estimate of future retirement income in real terms

It is important to show users an estimate of future retirement income to provide a relatable indicator of financial preparedness for retirement. Showing only the amount of assets accumulated is not useful information for an individual to assess whether they will have enough money to finance their retirement. Nevertheless, where contributions and/or accumulated rights to pension plans are relatively low, it may be advisable to also show the projected level of assets accumulated because the achievable level of lifetime income may be relatively small and could discourage people from making additional savings. Real values are preferred for retirement income estimations so that individuals can more easily compare with their current salary and spending levels, even if this estimate is not perfect.

Projections should convey the uncertainty around estimations

Future projections should include clear indications that the values provided are only estimates and that the actual figures could be different depending on investment returns, other assumptions, and how the economy ultimately evolves. One way to do this is by presenting several estimates of future retirement income, for example a good scenario and a bad scenario in addition to the expected scenario. Alternatively, there could be an estimate that excludes any future contributions as well as one that shows the expected amount if individuals continue contributing at the same level.

Retirement income calculators are a useful tool to aid decision-making

Retirement income calculators can be an effective tool to engage users and help them to understand how the decisions they make can affect the level of expected income they can have in retirement. They allow users to adapt assumptions themselves to see how different parameters can change expected outcomes. At a minimum, calculators should allow users to change their retirement age and contributions, but more advanced versions can also allow people to adjust parameters such as investment returns or employment.

Retirement income should, where possible, be shown over time and not only at the point of retirement, and should reflect the different payout options available

It is useful for people to see how their retirement income could change over time and the impact of the different options they have to withdraw their retirement savings. This may also help them to understand the value of taking their savings gradually as income rather than as a lump sum.

Additional variables affecting retirement outcomes are also useful to include

Additional variables that are relevant and useful for members could include investment performance, asset allocations, fees charged by the providers, tax treatment, and survivor or disability benefits. Basic information about their plan and the contact details of their provider is helpful for users to be able to follow up with questions or issues regarding their plan.

Allowing users to download a summary of the information presented can facilitate the use of the information for retirement planning

Many dashboards allow users to download a summary of their pension information included on the platform to use for their broader financial planning in consultation with a financial advisor. Some platforms even allow individuals to send the summary directly to their financial advisor through the platform. This feature can encourage and facilitate the active use of this information to plan for their retirement.

Information should be presented using a layered approach

Presenting information in a layered approach makes the information more accessible to individuals and allows them to engage at the level of detail they are interested in without being overwhelmed with too much information from the beginning. This involves presenting the key information first, and then allowing users to drill down for additional details. For example, the initial information shown can be the assets accumulated or total expected income in retirement. This can then be broken down by the source of income (public pension, occupational pension, etc.), and then users can drill down into the details of each plan.

Technical vocabulary and jargon should be avoided

The information shown needs to be simple and understandable. Many users do not understand technical terminology commonly used for pensions (e.g. annuity, lump sum), and are not likely to engage with information that they find difficult to understand.

Visuals can aid user understanding and engagement

Along with simple vocabulary, visuals can help people to understand difficult concepts. For example, showing a graph with retirement income by source over time allows people to see when their income is expected to increase or decrease, and the income they can expect over their lifetime. Other visuals can help people understand if they are on the right track with their retirement planning (e.g. traffic light) or the impact of inflation over time.

Including information on what people can do to change outcomes is important to positively impact retirement planning

Estimates of future retirement income should be accompanied by references explaining the steps that people can take to change their outcomes. Providing users with information on their situation is only a first step and will not necessarily be sufficient to improve retirement outcomes. People will not necessarily know what to do with that information to increase their expected retirement income. With this additional information, people who find that their expected finances in retirement are not in line with their needs or expectations would then know concretely what they could do to improve it.

User testing is important to understand the most effective formats to engage different types of people

Testing the format and functionality of the dashboard with real users is important to ensure that the platform will be useful and fit for purpose to achieve its goals. User testing can allow developers to see which formats are best at engaging people and helping them to understand the information that the dashboard provides. Such testing can ensure that users are able to easily navigate the dashboard and use the tools provided. The dashboard should also be accessible for different types of people with various objectives of using the platform, which can vary with age, gender, or knowledge of pensions, for example. Testing should also consider the device from which users will access the dashboard to make sure the content is still readable and usable.

7.5.3. Development and operations

Numerous practical aspects are involved in the development of individual pension dashboards. These relate to how to organise various stakeholders to support, develop and manage the platform, how to ensure the accuracy and security of data provided to the platform, and how to promote awareness and use of the platform by the population.

Mandating pension providers to connect to the dashboard is effective in ensuring broad and timely coverage

Broad coverage of providers is important to ensure that the dashboard will be useful for users and in turn to ensure that they will continue to access and make use of the platform. The most effective way to ensure broad and timely coverage is to make providers’ participation mandatory. Nevertheless, even if required to connect, providers will still need sufficient time to develop the necessary infrastructure and processes to do so. As such, it may be preferable to allow for voluntary participation initially and allow more time for providers to comply with mandatory participation.

However, where the largest players strongly support the dashboard, voluntary participation may be sufficient to achieve broad coverage. Once the dashboard is viewed as a valuable tool for members and/or employers to access information about the pension system and pensions, providers will be more incentivised to connect their pension funds on their own. They may even be pressured by their members to do so, so that the members will be able to easily access all their pension accounts in one place. Additionally, as more providers connect, competitive pressure should encourage the remaining providers to connect as well.

Nevertheless, voluntary participation is less likely to be successful where there is a large number of providers or where initial support from the private sector is lacking. Mandating participation may also be the preferred approach when the government owns the platform to justify the investment and ensure its success, and to avoid the reputational risk of a failed project.

The management of publicly owned dashboards by independent public or semi-public entities can mitigate potential conflicts of interest and ensure the appropriate expertise

It is common for specialised institutions to be in charge of managing the operations of publicly-owned dashboards. This can reduce conflicts of interest in the advancement of the dashboard because the mandate of the entity includes the development and management of the dashboard in the interests of the members and the other stakeholders of the system. It can also allow for the integration of more specialised knowledge in-house, rather than having to outsource all the required activities.

Single access points can simplify the promotion of the dashboard, but may not appeal to all potential users

Most individual pension dashboards operate with a single access point where users can log in to access their personalised space. This allows for simple communication campaigns that guide potential users to the particular website or app for the dashboard, and can educate users on how to use the dashboard. With this approach, there may be less confusion about how to access and use the dashboard because there is only one place to go and a single user interface to learn. However, users can be heterogenous in their preference regarding how they engage with their pensions. They may rather prefer to access such information through their financial provider’s website if they are more used to managing their finances from there. They may also prefer different formats or tools that alternative access points may offer. Nevertheless, where multiple access points are allowed, it is important that all are subject to minimum standards for the quality and consistency of information provided.

Multiple stakeholders should be involved in the dashboard’s governance

Public-private governance models have the advantage of promoting coordination between the different stakeholders involved in the system and making sure the views of the different parties are represented. However, it can also come with challenges, as the interests of the two sides may not always align. This can lead to disagreements around decisions that need to be made around the priorities for the development of the dashboard, and potentially slow decision-making.

Alternatively, public governing bodies can consult sub-committees or advisory bodies in the decisions they make to ensure that they consider the views of different stakeholders. Such bodies can include private-sector representatives. This can also ensure that they have the input of relevant experts in taking decisions.

Dashboards should have a clear source of financing and a dedicated budget

The way in which the platform is financed should be aligned with its purpose and objectives. Having a dedicated budget allocated to the development and operation of the digital platform can avoid potential conflicts with other priorities of the entity or institution in charge of managing the platform. Such conflicts could prevent additional financing to develop and improve the platform.

Providers of data to the platform need to conform to a minimum set of common data standards

Data standards should be established from the outset. To the extent possible, existing standards should serve as a basis for the format of data to be fed to the platform. This can include, for example, the format used for pension statements or standards used for pension projections. Data standards will more likely need to be mandated where the industry does not already follow a common standard and where there are a large number of providers in the market.

Unique identifiers are required to link pension accounts to individual users

The simplest approach to link users and accounts is to rely on individuals’ national ID numbers. However, pension accounts are not always linked to these numbers in all jurisdictions. In these cases, it is more challenging to establish a unique identifier, and several variables including full names, birthdays, and potentially other characteristics need to be used to link an individual’s accounts to their personal space on the platform. Several jurisdictions rely on electronic identification numbers, which an individual may need to separately apply for. This additional step can nevertheless be a barrier for the take-up and use of the platform for those less inclined to do so.

Data protection measures are crucial to safeguard the security of individual data

Data providers and intermediaries must comply with applicable data protection laws. Often, providers must demonstrate that they comply and uphold data protection standards on their own platforms. Dashboards that process individuals’ data should verify the identity of the user to allow access to the data. They also often require individual consent before the data is accessed. This can be done when users register or sign into the dashboard for the first time, or when they request to perform certain transactions.

The choice between a centralised database and a live-access model needs to consider cost, security, service objectives and data needs

Pension dashboards can access the data shown to users either via a centralised database where all relevant data is stored, or through a live-access model where the dashboard obtains data from providers in real-time when the user logs in, and then subsequently deletes it. Live-access models are more complex and costly to implement, however they also offer more security because the data is not being stored in a single place. However, centralised databases can allow for the data to be used for other purposes such as the monitoring of the system and can ensure the data is available when requested.

Legislating the authorised use of data stored in a centralised database can facilitate its use to improve policy

A centralised database offers a valuable opportunity as a source of data for governmental, statistical or academic studies. Legislating the authorised use of data provides a legal basis for it to be used by the government and other stakeholders for studies about the pension system. Such studies can help to identify areas of success or improvements needed in the system and inform policy measures to improve retirement outcomes in a targeted manner.

Communication plans are crucial for the success of dashboards

Communication should involve awareness campaigns targeting potential users to inform them how they can access the platform and what information they will be able to find on it. The channels of communication should consider the most effective medium for the type of user targeted.

Additionally, communication is imperative for managing expectations and raising awareness around the dashboard. Communication with media outlets and the public can keep them up to date on the progress of the dashboard and avoid unrealistic expectations. The lack of a sound communication plan can backfire as the public’s expectations may be unrealistic, which could lead to challenges to move forward if the initial platform falls below those expectations.

Users will need to understand that the initial version of the platform is only a first step, and that the dashboard will continue to improve over time. Otherwise, they may have high expectations and be disappointed with the little amount of information that the dashboard may initially provide, and they will be reluctant to consult the dashboard again in the future.

Pension providers can be useful to help promote dashboards

Communication budgets are often limited and may not be sufficient to finance an effective communication campaign for all potential users. As such, pension providers can be useful advocates for dashboards, and it is often in their interest to promote them to members. A well-designed dashboard is an easy and more cost-effective way for them to engage members with their retirement savings, and to potentially encourage them to save more. Beyond the voluntary promotion by providers, they could also be required to provide information on how to access the dashboard on their own websites and include this information in their communications to members.

7.5.4. Evolution and monitoring

The development of individual pension dashboards is a long process involving improvement over time and the monitoring of usage and retirement outcomes to ensure they are effective in achieving their objectives.

The development of a dashboard should establish clear objectives with a timeline of milestones to achieve them

Many dashboards begin in a simple manner, but there needs to be a clear view on how the platform should develop going forward and what other information and functionalities it will include. It is also important to establish a timeline in which to achieve those objectives.

Having a clear plan to develop the platform will have numerous benefits. First, users can know what changes to expect going forward and adapt their expectations accordingly. They can potentially also be given the opportunity to provide feedback about what worked for them, what they did not like, or what may be missing to improve the platform going forward. Second, having explicit milestones will provide incentives to continue the development of the platform, rather than maintain the initial simple version. Finally, if the participation of providers is not mandatory, a clear plan will help them to understand the potential added value of the platform in the future, and they will be more likely be willing to work towards connecting to it voluntarily as an additional benefit for their members.

Measurable metrics should be used to assess the impact of the dashboard given its objectives

Metrics can provide an indication of whether the dashboard is successful in achieving its objectives and its impact on the desired outcomes within the pension system, and if something may need to be adjusted. It is important to link metrics to the objectives and the timeline of milestones to achieve. Access to the platform is a useful metric to determine the extent to which the platform is actually used by stakeholders. Access can be measured through the proportion of users logging into the platform, the frequency with which they do so, or the duration of their visit. Other metrics can provide an indication of any positive impact on desired outcomes. If the dashboard aims to provide information, it should ideally improve users’ knowledge and understanding of pensions. Additional metrics could be whether contributions change, whether members consolidate their accounts, or how people tend to withdraw their money. Regardless of the metric used, it is important to consider the impact for different demographics to determine whether the platform is effective in engaging and improving outcomes for different types of people.

References

[3] Antolin, P. and O. Fuentes (2012), “Communicating Pension Risk to DC Plan Members: The Chilean Case of a Pension Risk Simulator”, OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions, No. 28, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9181hxzmlr-en.

[5] EIOPA (2021), Technical advice on pension tracking systems - impact assessment, https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/system/files/2021-12/technical_advice_pts_impact_assessment.pdf.

[2] EIOPA (2021), Technical advice on the development of pension tracking systems, https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/system/files/2021-12/technical_advice_pension_tracking_systems_for_publicationfinal.pdf.

[6] Fuentes, O. et al. (2023), “Personalized Information as a Tool to Improve Pension Savings: Results from a Randomized Control Trial in Chile”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, https://doi.org/10.1086/720718.

[1] IOPS (2022), Good practices for designing, presenting and supervising pension projections, https://www.iopsweb.org/IOPS-Good-practices-for-designing-presenting-and-supervising-pension-projections-2022.pdf.

[4] Serenelli, L. (2023), “German government to make pension funds join dashboard”, IPE magazine, https://www.ipe.com/news/german-government-to-make-pension-funds-join-dashboard/10070133.article?utm_campaign=1543686_20.11.23%20ipe%20daily%20news&utm_medium=email&utm_source=IPE&dm_i=5KVE,X346,C5E85,42YZM,1.

Annex 7.A. Summary of elements included in individual pension dashboards

Annex Table 7.A.1. Comparison of the content of individual pension dashboards

Country	Platform	Pillars covered	Accounts shown	Assets accumulated	Expected retirement income	Retirement income calculator (dynamic projection)	Contributions	Tax	Survivor/disability	Investment performance	Fees	Plan /provider information	Other functionality
Australia	YourSuper Comparison	2	Automatic	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Consolidation, transfers between funds; compassionate release
Belgium	mypension.be	1, 2	Automatic; Manual additions possible for missing accounts	Yes	Yes	Retirement age; salary; job; hours worked	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Can sign up to receive pension communications by email; track communication with provider
Chile	Simulador de Pensiones	2, 3	Automatic	Yes	Yes	Retirement age; salary; voluntary contributions; other savings; investment strategy; withdrawals; spouse and dependent children	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Email of results
Croatia	Moja mirovina	1, 2 (3 planned)	Automatic		Yes	Retirement age; salary; investment return; economic growth;							Download results
Denmark	PensionsInfo	1, 2, 3	Automatic	Yes	Yes	Retirement age	Annual contri-butions per plan	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Download pdf or send directly to advisor
Estonia	Minu Pension	1, 2, 3	Manual input	Yes	Yes	Investment return	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Can make contributions and transfers
Germany	Digitale Rentenüber-sicht	1, 2, 3	Automatic	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Can export to advisors
Ireland	Pensions Vault	2, 3	Manual input	Yes	Yes	Yes							Storage of pension documents; connect with advisor
Israel	Swiftness	2	Automatic	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes		Yes			Yes	Power of attorney requests; Download report
Latvia	Services Portal	1, 2	Automatic	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	Admin only	Yes	Request to switch providers
Mexico	AFORE Móvil	2	Automatic	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No		Yes			Open account, register beneficiaries, change providers, make contributions, withdraw voluntary contributions
Nether- lands	Mijnpensioenoverzicht.nl	1, 2	Automatic; can also add partner’s pension	Yes	Yes; also in good and bad investment scenarios	Retirement age, salary change, divorce	No	Yes	Yes			Yes	Download pdf
Norway	Norsk Pensjon	1, 2, 3	Automatic	Yes	Yes	Salary, retirement age; advanced calculator with marital status, partial retirement, and work abroad	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Download pdf
Slovak Republic	Orange Envelope	1, 2, 3	Manual input	Yes	Good – average – poor investment scenarios		Monthly contri- -butions per source	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Spain	Plataforma Digital Común	2 (partial)	Automatic	Yes	Planned	Planned	Yes	No	No	Planned	No	Yes	Download pdf
Sweden	MinPension	1, 2, 3	Automatic; can manually add missing accounts	Yes	Yes	Retirement age; job change; salary change		Yes		No	Yes		Retirement income planner for 54+; appoint power of attorney
UK	Pensions Dashboard	1, 2	Automatic; can manually add missing accounts	Yes	Current entitle- -ments and if contribu- -tions continue	No			No			Yes	Can export information to financial advisor

Notes

← 1.  Digital platforms that provide individuals with information on their accumulated pensions are commonly referred to as ‘pension dashboards’ or ‘pension tracking systems’. The latter term was coined by EIOPA and is commonly used in Europe. However, this report will refer to these platforms as ‘individual pension dashboards’, or more briefly as ‘dashboards’.

← 2.  The scope of the report only includes dashboards that incorporate information on asset-backed pensions.

← 3.  The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following individuals, who generously took the time to share their information and experiences with digital platforms in their respective jurisdictions: Myriam Lanotte, Sigedis (Belgium); Cynthia Hui, MPFA (Hong Kong, China); Đorđe Nižetić, Damir Bilić and Zoran Protega, REGOS (Croatia); Michael Rasch, Insurance and Pension Denmark (Denmark); Trond Tørstad, Norsk Pensjon (Norway); Manuel Alvarez, Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration (Spain); Anders Lundström, Min Pension (Sweden); Matt Burrell, Standard Life (United Kingdom); Lucy Hemsley, DWP (United Kingdom).

← 4.  In Belgium there is also limited involvement of members in decisions relating to their occupational pensions, and therefore less of a need to support decision making.

← 5.  Annexe 7.A provides the details of the elements included in the various dashboards discussed in this section.

← 6.  All sources to finance retirement refers to those sources solely intended to finance retirement, and not all financial assets that individuals may own.

← 7.  This compares to around EUR 5 million required to set up the Norsk Pensjon platform in Norway, which has a more limited scope of functionality.