Fleur Rieter: 'Board and supervisory board members really have to understand each other well.’
Rieter has been CFRO of fiduciary asset manager MN Services since 2019 and co-chair of the board of directors since July 2024. Before that, she was director of pensions at insurer a.s.r., where her ‘love for pensions’ was affirmed. The move to MN, she says, was partly motivated by her interest in operating in a more social environment. ‘The intrinsic social focus is an important difference between a pension provider and an insurer. The size of MN also appealed to me. We have seven institutional clients, including two of the largest industry-wide pension funds in the Netherlands: PMT and PME. We manage 147 billion euros in pension assets for our clients. If you can make an improvement there, you immediately have a positive impact on an enormous number of people. I find that super interesting.’
Interviewer Peter Hemels of consultancy firm ftrprf joined via Teams from New York. Because Rieter previously worked in listed environments, he is curious to know how she experienced the move to the pension world, which comes with a major role for social partners. It was definitely ‘a steep learning curve’, Rieter acknowledges, ‘but I have learned to appreciate the achievements of the social partners in the Netherlands in the field of collective labor agreements and pensions even more. I think that many in the Netherlands do not realise how well things are organised here, certainly in a global perspective.’
Do you not miss the world of stock exchange listings even to some extent?
‘Yes and no. I am quite result-oriented. If in a more commercial environment the decision is made to go left, everyone goes left. That is gratifying, although there too – typically Dutch –everyone wants to have a say and voice an opinion about it before the decision is made. The world of social partners has a completely different dynamic and seems to work more slowly. I sometimes find that difficult, but it taught me the importance of creating support, and that that simply takes time.’
You say that you went through a steep learning curve at MN. What was the Mount Everest of challenges?
‘In July 2024, MN transferred all pension management activities, including 300 employees, to PGGM based on the strategic rationale that scale counts. That was undoubtedly the biggest change. Prior to that, we connected our IT systems to those of PGGM for pension management which also was a huge operation. I was chairman of the joint steering group that had to launch the new IT platform, for two and a half years. There were several go/no go moments during that process, where we had to go through eight committees each time – each of which made its own assessment – to get a go-ahead. That was a good learning experience for what you can expect to encounter during a transition in terms of processes, people, support, decision-making and then execution. It was also enormously educational for the major transition to the new Dutch pension system that we are now in the middle of. We are greatly satisfied that everything went extremely well in the end.’
What does the divestment of pension management mean for the current MN?
‘We have become a different company as a result, with a sharper focus and we are now specifically focusing on fiduciary asset management – with the emphasis on fiduciary. We will of course continue to manage our clients’ investments, but we mainly want to be a trusted advisor to the fund managers. I find that focus fantastic.’
According to its website, MN wants to ‘provide a good pension in a world that we can pass on to future generations.’ How is that expressed in that fiduciary role?
‘Sustainability as a theme is very important to our clients, always in conjunction with their own identity and the translation to the constituency. We have thorough knowledge and expertise in this area and can advise the funds on how they can translate their investment philosophy into a tailor-made portfolio, but the choices ultimately lie with the fund board itself. In practice, we see that different funds make different choices when it comes to sustainability.’
There are extensive discussions in the pension world about the short versus the long term. For example, Dutch VVD MP Thierry Aartsen submitted a motion calling on pension funds to always put financial returns first. What is your view on this?
‘Ultimately, our clients are long-term investors. You cannot separate returns from risk and sustainability. For example, we have been using the democracy index as a criterion in our advice for years, a ranking of countries compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Based on this, Russia was eliminated at a certain point, even before the invasion of Ukraine. In the same way, you also determine which sustainability instruments you want to use. Do you, for example, from an index of 300 names choose the 150 names that achieve a certain score on ESG? Do you consciously exclude certain companies, such as major polluters? Do you specifically choose investments in companies that make an impact? These are all long-term choices. Of course you continue to monitor that, but in general there is usually no reason for the pension funds to revise in the short term.’
In addition to being a director at MN, you are also member of the supervisory board at health insurer VGZ and housing corporation Dudok Wonen. How do you combine that in practice?
‘At MN, I have been leading the new board of directors as co-chair together with Martijn Scholten since 1 July 2024. The agreement is that I can also accept two additional positions. I combine that by managing my agenda well and by realising that you really need to be available when things get challenging, as a director and as a supervisory board member. In fact, that also applies to the home front. Two of my four children are in secondary school and live at home still, so we often have a week when things get challenging.’
As supervisory board member, in addition to being an employer, you are also an advisor to the board. How do you want to fulfil that role?
‘Of course, there must a good balance between retrospective supervision and advice for the future, but the added value of a supervisory board, in my opinion, lies mainly in assisting the board in strategy formulation and execution, and in providing good support for the dilemmas that the executive board is faced with. The social importance of the sectors in which I am active is huge, there is extensive regulation, and they are all sectors in transition. That creates enormous complexity. A supervisory board needs to provide direction for that, but it is particularly valuable if the supervisory board thinks with. At the same time, as member of the supervisory board you must understand clearly where your responsibility ends and when you need to keep more distance, because that is also where your strength lies. If you manage to find your way around this, you can really have an impact as supervisory board member. That ‘thinking along with’ is completely different from being a director yourself, because then you are in the driver’s seat yourself. The combination of different roles does help me to see all kinds of dilemmas from multiple perspectives. This dialogue is conducted differently at every table. That is how you learn.'
We live in a time in which an incredible amount of change is happening, often very quickly. Does this have consequences for the role of supervisory board member?
‘In the sectors in which I am active, the challenges are enormous. It concerns the affordability of housing, the accessibility of healthcare, and pension security. Furthermore, in all three sectors, you are dealing with vulnerable groups. At PMT, for example, participants have an average pension of 600 euros per month. I therefore believe that as a director and supervisory board member in these sectors, you need to thoroughly understand what the issues at stake in society are and what your purpose as an organization is. Organizations are under pressure now in many ways – from the nitrogen crisis to staff shortages and an aging population. I hear the same from supervisory board members in other sectors. There is hardly an organization that can afford to stand still anymore. Even the most commercial company in a niche market needs to engage with AI to survive, to mention just one transition. The five-year plans of the past have become totally obsolete. Nowadays, it is all about thinking in scenarios. It is therefore crucial that the board of directors and supervisory board stand shoulder to shoulder. We may not have a one-tier model in the Netherlands, but when it comes to strategy and challenging matters, mutual understanding is vital.’
As ftrprf, we map out the undercurrent in society, among other things. A very clear trend is that organizations, and therefore also directors and supervisory board members, are increasingly being held personally accountable for policy and responsibility. We expect that this will only get worse in the coming years. Do you recognize that?
‘I recognize that people are alert to it and that it is a concern for many people. I did two supervisory board training courses, at Nyenrode and IMD, and I saw prospective supervisory board members drop out for that reason. That is why I always say that being a member of a supervisory board is a profession that should be regarded with the utmost seriousness. You need to thoroughly understand what your role and responsibility is, how far it goes, when you need to be available, when you need to delve more deeply into an issue with the board... It is honourable to come to good decisions together, but it is not something you do on the side. I find it super interesting, and I also recognize the added value for myself. That perhaps makes it easier for me to navigate the concern about liability or being held accountable.'
You then make a conscious choice to add value and accept the potential downside. Am I summarizing that correctly?
'That is right, but at the same time I do suffer from an indirect consequence of the trend you describe. In the past I have experienced that ever more documents from, for example, audit and risk committees were delivered as a result. This is something I struggle with. Compliance and risk management are my field of expertise, and I certainly see the use and necessity for these, but they should not become a means to put on the brakes and avert every risk. The purpose is to achieve goals. What I need to know as a member of the supervisory board to be able to add value can most probably be done in fewer pages. Apparently, however, it is easier to send 400 pages than to make a concise summary.
I know that it can be a difficult subject to discuss, but the trend of ever more documents does not create a good dynamic. It is essential to have an honest conversation about how things can be done differently. Moreover, these often are mainly pages full of procedural documents which only cause noise. I focus on content, so when we are dealing with complicated issues, I want to go back to the content and the facts. Of course, the process needs to be right, but what are we busy doing if there is no solid underlying content?’
Back to MN, where you have been co-chair of the board for over six months. How do you and Martijn Scholten give substance to this unusual form of leadership?
‘Based on our backgrounds, we have a substantive division of tasks. Martijn focuses mainly on fiduciary advice and its execution; I focus more on finance and risk and, together with one of the non-statutory directors, on IT. For us, the co-chairmanship mainly manifests in our working together on strategy formulation and in the contact with the important parties in the stakeholder field. On the one hand because we believe that we complement each other, but also because we believe that we should be able to replace each other where necessary, given all the transitions we are in. Not only the transition to the Future Pensions Act, but also the transition of the organization itself and the various transitions in the field, such as sustainability, that affect our sector. The co-chairmanship works particularly well in a world in which so much is changing, because you keep each other on your toes. Furthermore, we have a very good connection on how we want to approach issues, so that is super fun.’
You chose a management position and supervisory board positions in socially relevant sectors. What does that say about you?
‘I have been raised with the awareness that it is important to be active in this way, for example through volunteer work. Being able to add social value is my motivation. That is what I do it for.'
This analysis was published in Management Scope 03 2025.
This article was last changed on 04-03-2025