The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) has called for a hybrid approach to the Pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP) and called for it to be given a simpler and more recognisable name, such as “EuroPension”.

EIOPA welcomed the European Commission’s (EC) consultation on supplementary pensions, with chairperson Petra Hielkema calling for “bold actions, at scale, to strengthen retirement security and reduce pension gaps".

In its response, EIOPA outlined a series of proposals to adapt the EU’s regulatory and supervisory frameworks for supplementary pensions, emphasising the need for value for money, the introduction of auto-enrolment, and enhanced supervision.

EIOPA also highlighted the need to address the financial needs of both European citizens and the EU economy, setting out reforms designed to expand pension coverage, lower costs, build trust, and ensure robust oversight.

Mirroring some of the broader industry proposals already seen, EIOPA called for changes to the current 1 per cent cost cap on PEPPs, suggesting that it be replaced with a system that balances costs against benefits and returns.

However, the group suggested that broader changes may also be needed, arguing that, given Europe’s ageing population, "scalable supplementary pensions are urgently needed to complement statutory pensions and close existing pension gaps".

Whilst occupational pensions play a key role, EIOPA pointed out that personal pensions provide additional flexibility by not being tied to a specific employer.

Indeed, EIOPA’s Eurobarometer survey recently found that 48 per cent of consumers with a personal pension feel financially confident about retirement, compared with just 36 per cent of those without—highlighting their impact on retirement security.

“Through a pan-European system, which supplements and complements existing national systems, with provisions that facilitate cross-border offerings, providers can reach the scale necessary to achieve higher returns and lower costs while channelling funds into key investments for the EU economy,” the authority stated.

A key element of its proposal is the creation of a clear, visible EU-wide pension label, as EIOPA argued that renaming the PEPP to “EuroPension” would raise awareness, boost uptake, and close pension gaps.

Consumer support for such a label seems strong. EIOPA’s 2025 Eurobarometer survey found that 54 per cent of EU consumers would be more likely to purchase a pension product if it carried an official EU label—a figure rising to 65 per cent among those under 24.

EIOPA also highlighted benefits for providers, arguing that the EuroPension label could attract savers seeking simple, transparent pension products, help them achieve greater scale, and reduce costs.

It also suggested that broadening the label’s scope to include qualifying national products could further expand the PEPP market, raise awareness, and boost retirement savings across the EU.

However, EIOPA also went a step further, supporting the possibility of employer contributions to the PEPP, complementing or supplementing Pillar II systems while maintaining its status as a personal pension product.

In line with this, EIOPA said that supports enhancing the existing PEPP framework to develop an integrated product capable of accommodating both individual and employer-sponsored retirement savings within a single regulatory structure without replacing or superseding well-functioning and well-established occupational pension structures and regimes. 

However, it warned that creating a separate pan-European occupational pension risks regulatory fragmentation, increased administrative burdens for providers and employers, and confusion for both savers and employers. 

Instead, EIOPA said that it sees the PEPP as a complementary tool—offering additional retirement income in markets with strong occupational pensions, while serving as a substitute in countries or sectors where occupational pensions are absent.

This “hybrid” model aims to balance flexibility with regulatory simplicity, facilitating wider adoption of the PEPP in the workplace while minimising disruption to the current framework. 

Whilst this approach would require some reforms, EIOPA clarified that these would be "modest amendments to the existing PEPP Regulation". 

"Products that combine individual and employer-sponsored retirement savings provide the flexibility needed to deal with the different tax treatments, contribution modalities, and legal frameworks applicable to individual and employer contributions across Member States," EIOPA stated.

"This flexibility facilitates integration with national tax systems and social benefit structures."

It also suggested that EuroPension could serve as a default auto-enrolment option in countries lacking Pillar II systems, and an option for employers to opt to auto-enrol employees is envisaged.

EIOPA also voiced support for the wider promotion of auto-enrolment, arguing that using occupational pensions in the scope of the IORP II Directive or PEPP offered in the workplace as auto-enrolment default options could improve pension coverage and scale.

“With an ageing population in the EU, we need to take bold actions, at scale, to strengthen retirement security and reduce pension gaps,” Hielkema said.

“This is why we have made targeted proposals to the European Commission to reform the current occupational and personal pensions framework in the EU.

"By automatically enrolling employees into IORPs or a EuroPension, by adapting EU pension regulation to foster smarter investments, and by creating a EuroPension label, we can unlock long-term savings and ensure fair access for all.

“When done well, these reforms will not only help EU citizens live in dignity at all ages, but also contribute to the objectives of the Savings and Investments Union (SIU).”

---