The guidance guarantee scheme for retirees should be funded by a levy across the financial services sector, the National Employment Savings Trust has told the Government.
The organisation has also stressed its belief that it has to be delivered by an independent third party.
Nest has put forward its ideas in a response to the consultation on freedom and choice in pensions.
Chief executive Tim Jones said: "The immediate challenge is to get a model up and running for April 2015 that is proportionate and cost-effective.
{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}
"We believe the most appropriate short term solution is a tightly defined guidance guarantee delivered by an independent third party. "This should be funded by a levy across the financial services sector to make sure those with the smallest pots don't shoulder disproportionate costs."
He added: "Our main concern is meeting the needs of these new savers in a way that offers value for money and won't eat into their pots, which in the short term are likely to be relatively small."
Meanwhile, Intelligent Pensions, has called for an extension of the existing levy system used to fund The Pension Advisory Service.
David Trenner, technical director of Intelligent Pensions, said: "With 400,000 people likely to retire each year, and this figure rising, the cost of delivering the guidance will be prohibitively high.
"We cannot honestly see pension providers covering the cost of this guidance without passing on some of the cost to the consumer. We believe an extension of the existing levy system, as used to fund TPAS, might be a suitable means of funding the costs of guidance."
{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}
Key points of NEST's response:

• Tightly defined guidance delivered by an independent third party is the best way to meet the needs of the new generation of pension savers and offer value for money in the short term.
• These savers are unlikely to have built up large pots in the short term and for the overwhelming majority of those that retire in the next few years taking their fund as cash will likely be the most sensible and tax efficient option, although this will change over time.
• The guidance must not result in those with the smallest funds, who have also got the simplest guidance needs, cross-subsidising those with larger funds and more demands.
• Furthermore, engagement and take-up may be limited and the financial risks of this unknown capacity issue must be carefully managed.
• A levy across the financial services sector would therefore be the most equitable way to fund the set up and delivery of this model.
• However this does not mean that well-governed schemes should not be trying to engage members over the longer term to help improve their outcomes.