My company falls under a mandatory industry pension fund in another sector! How is that possible? And is there a solution?
It happens that a company is obliged to participate in the pension fund of another sector. A good example is Like Meat, producer of, among other things, the vegetarian meatball. Like Meat falls under the mandatory pension fund of the meat processing industry. The Court of Appeal of The Hague[1] ruled that the production of vegan meat substitutes falls within the scope of the sectoral pension fund for Meat, Processed Meat, Convenience Food and Poultry Meat. A veggie meatball is considered convenience food. And convenience food falls under the mandatory participation of Bpf Vleb. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling.[2]
What does the law say?
The legal basis for mandatory participation in a sectoral pension fund (Bpf) is the Wet verplichte deelneming in een bedrijfstakpensioenfonds 2000 (Mandatory Participation in a Sectoral Pension Fund Act 2000). If an employer falls under a mandatory participation, then the articles of association, regulations and decisions of the sectoral pension fund must be complied with by the affiliated employer. For example, paying pension contributions is therefore mandatory. Failure to comply with this obligation may lead to (joint and several) director’s liability.
A mandatory participation may be requested from the relevant minister by the organised business community within a sector, when these organisations represent an important majority of the persons working in that sector.
What a sector is, is not defined in legislation or regulations. A sector can be described as a group of companies engaged in producing similar products or services. Examples are hospitality, construction, the banking sector or healthcare. This is where the problem arises. Convenience food or not, it does not seem logical that a producer of vegan products is required to join the pension fund for the meat processing industry.
What does the court say?
The case was substantively handled by the subdistrict court of the District Court of The Hague[3] and the Court of Appeal of The Hague. The Supreme Court did not assess the case substantively in cassation.
The subdistrict court found that Like Meat did not fall under the mandatory participation of Vleb because it does not make meat products.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the products Like Meat makes fall under the description of convenience food in the mandatory participation, which means that Like Meat must be mandatorily affiliated with Bpf Vleb. The Supreme Court upheld this judgment, but did not assess it substantively.
What does politics say?
It is interesting that the European Parliament decided on 8 October 2025 that vegetarian products may no longer have names that refer to products containing meat. This is intended to protect European meat farmers from competition from vegetarian alternatives. Names such as veggie meatball, vegetarian sausage, veggieburger and plant-based schnitzel will be prohibited.
What’s in the name?
The Court ruled that the average consumer today does not understand meatballs, frikandellen and hamburgers to mean only meat-containing products, but also the vegetarian/vegan variants. Now that the names of meat substitutes must be changed, this could lead to a different assessment by the court. However, it is doubtful whether the name of a product makes a difference for the court’s assessment. Veggie balls remain convenience food. And then, as a perhaps principled producer of vegan products, you suddenly fall under the mandatory participation of the meat processing industry. If that is a moral problem for the producer, filing a request for exemption may be a possible solution.
[1] Court of Appeal The Hague 23-05-2023, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2023:1185
[2] Supreme Court 28 May 2024, ECLI:NL:HR:2024:624
[3] District Court The Hague 01-09-2022, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12945
