Skip to content

This study using advance data analysis reconstructs and analyzes the transition bond allocations of four major Dutch pension funds: ABP, PFZW, PME and PMT. Using a bespoke dataset built from annual reports, EU Taxonomy disclosures and SFDR templates, the research assesses alignment with sustainability objectives and identifies systemic risks.

License

Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

Saveeza/-transition-bonds-netherlands-pension-risk-analysis

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

 

History

15 Commits
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repository files navigation

Banner

🇳🇱 Dutch Pension Funds and the Transition Bond Credibility Gap

📊 A Deep-Dive into ESG Risk, Taxonomy Scoring, and Sustainable Finance Data Integrity

Binder DOI


📘 Overview

This repository supports the article:
Dutch Pension Funds’ Bet on Transition Bonds: Data Shows a Credibility Gap?

We conducted a multi-stage data-driven audit of transition bonds held by four major Dutch pension funds (ABP, PFZW, PME, and PMT). Using over 1,000 pages of disclosures, we extracted and scored bond-level alignment with the EU Taxonomy, verified KPI disclosures, and modeled exposure to stranded asset risk under different climate scenarios.


🔍 Key Findings

  • Only 37% of bond proceeds were fully aligned with EU Taxonomy thresholds
  • 60% of reported KPIs lacked third-party assurance or science-based benchmarks
  • ⚠️ Up to €2.1 billion at risk of being stranded under revised EU climate rules
  • 📉 PME and PMT had the lowest average bond credibility scores
  • 🔄 Misclassification found between SFDR Article 9 and actual environmental performance

🖼️ Visual Gallery

Visual Description
Figure 1 Growth of transition bond holdings (2020–2023) across Dutch pension funds
Figure 2 EU Taxonomy alignment levels of transition bonds
Figure 3 KPI verification status (self-reported vs. externally assured)
Table 1 Bond scoring breakdown by sector and SFDR classification
Table 2 Sectoral exposure to transition risk (€ millions)

All figures and tables are located in the visuals/ folder.


🧠 Technical Framework

🛠 Tools Used

  • Python (tabula-py, pandas, matplotlib, seaborn)
  • Excel (pivot tables, formula-based scoring, cross-validation)
  • Jupyter Notebooks (for scoring logic, scenario modeling, visual generation)
  • Binder (for public, reproducible access)

🧪 Analysis Performed

  • Manual extraction of bond disclosures from SFDR templates and reports (2020–2023)
  • Scoring model for EU taxonomy alignment
  • KPI audit and classification (verified vs internal benchmarks)
  • Sectoral heatmapping of climate risk exposure
  • Scenario simulation for potential stranded asset losses
  • Portfolio-level inconsistencies flagged between stated SFDR classification and real-world impact

🧱 Repository Structure

📦 transition-bonds-netherlands-pension-risk-analysis
├── 📄 article/
│   └── Dutch Pension Funds and the Credibility Challenge of Transition Bonds.pdf
├── 📁 data/
│   └── Extracted and cleaned datasets used for scoring, modeling, and visuals
├── 📁 visuals/
│   └── Project figures and charts used in the article and README
├── 📁 notebooks/
│   ├── data_extraction.ipynb
│   ├── taxonomy_scoring_model.xlsx
│   ├── scenario_modeling.ipynb
│   └── verification_analysis.ipynb
└── 📄 README.md

🚧 Barriers, Risks, and Misconduct Potential

  • ⚠️ Inconsistent disclosure formats across funds
  • 🧾 Lack of mandatory KPI verification
  • 🔐 Internal KPI creation without third-party assurance
  • 📉 Misuse of SFDR Article 9 classification
  • 🔍 Insufficient sectoral stress testing for high-risk investments

🧭 Policy Implications and Strategic Recommendations

Recommendation Impact
✅ Mandatory third-party KPI audits Improves ESG disclosure credibility
✅ Clarify Taxonomy-SFDR alignment thresholds Minimizes greenwashing loopholes
✅ Fund-level scenario stress testing Identifies sectoral risk concentrations
✅ Interactive ESG dashboards Enhances transparency for regulators & stakeholders
✅ Enforcement against mislabeling Reduces credibility risk in transition bond markets

📢 Call to Action

🔎 For Dutch and EU financial policymakers, pension analysts, and ESG strategists:

  • Assess your SFDR Article 9 allocations using real taxonomy data
  • Audit internal KPIs for climate science alignment and assurance
  • Adopt multi-variable scoring systems to validate fund-level alignment
  • Use heatmaps and simulations to prepare for upcoming policy tightening

📄 Read the full research here:
LinkedIn Article


📄 PDF Download

Offline or academic reference:
Dutch Pension Funds and the Credibility Challenge of Transition Bonds.pdf


📚 How to Cite

Aziz, S. (2025). Saveeza/-transition-bonds-netherlands-pension-risk-analysis: Initial Zenodo Release — Pension Funds and the Credibility Challenge of Transition Bonds (Netherlands) (v1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16148035


✅ Project Status

  • Article completed and peer-reviewed
  • Data cleaned, structured, and stored in /data/
  • Custom scoring model developed
  • All visuals rendered and described
  • Jupyter Notebooks created and documented
  • Policy recommendations integrated
  • Binder access enabled
  • GitHub structure finalized
  • Ready for collaboration or academic use

About the Author

Saveeza Aziz is a sustainable finance data analyst focused on ESG taxonomy, climate policy, and high-complexity financial analysis in support of Europe's Green Deal. Experienced in Python, Excel, and policy-relevant sustainability modeling.


About

This study using advance data analysis reconstructs and analyzes the transition bond allocations of four major Dutch pension funds: ABP, PFZW, PME and PMT. Using a bespoke dataset built from annual reports, EU Taxonomy disclosures and SFDR templates, the research assesses alignment with sustainability objectives and identifies systemic risks.

Resources

License

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Packages

No packages published