Heywood
Digital communication is becoming central to how pension schemes engage with their members, and for good reason. Personalised, well-timed digital content can improve member understanding, reduce follow-up queries and support better decisions at critical moments.
But it doesn't come without risk. If digital communication is the route to better member outcomes, schemes and providers need to be confident that it isn't creating new barriers for the people who need clear information the most.
How digital exclusion can affect pension scheme members
According to the DWP's Family Resources Survey, 16.8 million people in the UK have a disability - that’s approximately one in four of the population. Many rely on assistive technology such as screen readers, magnification tools or voice recognition to access the web. That alone should give any pension scheme pause before assuming digital delivery equals universal access.
But disability is only part of the picture. Age UK found that 2.4 million older people in the UK have limited use of the internet, using it less than once a month or not at all. Ofcom's data shows that 21% of people aged 65 and over have no internet access at home, and LINK's research from early 2026 found that nearly one in four UK adults classify themselves as digitally excluded in some form, with income the single largest factor.
These are the people approaching retirement, drawing pensions and making decisions about their financial futures. Many are the members who most need clear, accessible information and who are least likely to receive it through digital channels alone.
Good intentions, uneven outcomes
The regulatory direction is clear. The Pensions Regulator expects schemes to demonstrate that communications support good member outcomes, and the FCA's targeted support framework requires firms to show that information was understood, not just sent.
But is there a risk that the industry interprets "better communication" as "digital communication" and stops there? A scheme that moves to digital-first engagement and sees average understanding rates improve can still be leaving its most vulnerable members behind. Averages conceal the people they exclude.
This matters practically, too. When a scheme runs a buy-out exercise or GMP equalisation project, the members who struggle with digital channels are often the ones with the most at stake: deferred members approaching retirement, pensioners whose benefits are changing, people who need to make informed decisions within a fixed window.
If your communication strategy improves outcomes for 90% of members but creates new barriers for the remaining 10%, it has not met the standard that regulators are setting.
What "accessible" means in pensions
Most organisations think about accessibility in terms of compliance: meeting WCAG 2.1 AA standards, ensuring screen reader compatibility, checking colour contrast ratios. That's necessary. But it answers the wrong question.
The right question is whether a member with a visual impairment can actually understand their retirement projection. Whether someone using a screen reader can navigate the options in a transfer value illustration. Whether a member with a cognitive difficulty can absorb what a scheme change means for them personally.
Compliance asks: does this meet the technical standard? Accessibility asks: can this person understand what they need to understand?
In pensions, those are different questions. A communication can pass every WCAG checkpoint and still be incomprehensible to someone without specialist financial knowledge. Equally, a communication designed around genuine comprehension, one that explains context, paces information and adapts to how the recipient engages, can do more for accessibility than any compliance audit.
The two don't have to be separate problems. Personalised video, for example, can meet WCAG 2.1 AA standards while also adapting to how the recipient engages, offering adjustable text, high-contrast modes, text-to-speech and the choice between video and text formats. The compliance requirement and the comprehension goal are addressed in the same interaction.
This is where format matters more broadly. Giving members control over how they receive and interact with information makes a real difference. These are not features for a small group. They are design decisions that respect the reality of how diverse your membership actually is.
The kerb cut effect
There is a well-documented pattern in accessible design. Features built for specific needs tend to improve the experience for everyone. Kerb cuts were designed for wheelchair users but are now used by parents with pushchairs, delivery drivers and cyclists. Subtitles were designed for deaf viewers but are now used by commuters watching on mute and language learners.
The same pattern holds in pension communications. Adjustable text sizes help members with visual impairments and anyone reading on a mobile phone. Audio options support members who are blind or partially sighted and those who simply prefer to listen. Clearer layouts and the ability to pause and revisit content at your own pace make communication better for the whole membership, not just the members they were originally designed for.
This reframes accessibility from a compliance cost to an engagement multiplier. You are not spending extra to accommodate a small group. You are building communication that works better for everyone, including the members who would otherwise disengage.
The accountability question
Most pension schemes have never tested their communications with members who use assistive technology. They have not asked whether a screen reader user can make sense of their annual benefit statement. They have not considered whether a member with early-stage cognitive decline can follow a scheme change notification.
These are not hypothetical members. In any scheme of meaningful size, they exist. And the regulatory direction makes it increasingly difficult to treat their experience as someone else's problem.
The question for schemes is straightforward. Can you demonstrate that your digital engagement approach does not create new barriers? Can you show that the shift to clearer, more effective communication includes the members who need it most?
If the answer is uncertain, that is worth examining before the next major communication exercise, not after.
