eFinder

eFinder

Is your ‘sustainable’ super funding fossil fuels or weapons? How to check the fine print

Analysis Summary

Propaganda Score
0% (confidence: 100%)
Summary
The article discusses the complexities of sustainable superannuation investing in Australia, highlighting the lack of a unified definition for 'sustainable' investments and the varying criteria used by different funds. It reports on regulatory actions against funds accused of greenwashing and advises readers to scrutinize fund details.

Fact-Check Results

“Many Australians don’t realise their superannuation savings – worth A$4.5 trillion and growing – may be invested in fossil fuel companies, gambling, or even weapons manufacturers.”
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — No evidence in archive to confirm or refute claims about superannuation investments
“The latest official superannuation statistics show most of Australia’s major super funds now offer investments designed to reduce exposure to everything from coal and oil to other industries like tobacco, weapons, gambling and alcohol.”
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — No evidence in archive to verify official statistics about super fund investments
“A few funds, such as Australian Ethical and Future Super, only offer sustainable options, with tighter investment restrictions than most super funds.”
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — No evidence in archive to confirm specific fund investment restrictions
“In Australian Ethical’s case, weapons makers and tobacco producers are excluded outright. But a diversified company earning a small share of revenue from fossil fuels or alcohol may still be held, if its positives are judged to outweigh its negatives.”
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — No evidence in archive to verify Australian Ethical's investment criteria
“Among the biggest super funds, which most Australians have their super in, there’s a wide variety of 'sustainable' options on offer.”
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — No evidence in archive to assess diversity of sustainable options in major funds
“Most super sustainable options in Australia use some combination of 'negative screening' (excluding sectors like fossil fuels, gambling or weapons) and 'positive screening' (favouring companies with strong environmental, social and governance practices).”
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — No evidence in archive to verify common screening methods used by super funds
“HESTA’s 'sustainable growth' option has a long list of exclusions, including companies with thermal coal, oil and gas reserves, tobacco and controversial weapons. Its thresholds vary for each category, from outright bans (such as on uranium miners) to restrictions on revenue (such as weapons).”
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — No evidence in archive to confirm HESTA's specific exclusion thresholds
“AustralianSuper has a 'socially aware' option with some of the same exclusions. But its thresholds also vary. Last year, AustralianSuper attracted criticism for buying back into Whitehaven Coal for its wider, non-sustainable investment portfolio – a reversal of its 2020 sale of stocks in the coal miner.”
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — No evidence in archive to verify AustralianSuper's investment reversal actions
“The Australian Financial Review recently reported Australia’s third-largest pension fund Aware Super was lifting some restrictions on investments in carbon-heavy companies, under a new benchmark system to track which companies are doing most to cut emissions.”
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — No evidence in archive to confirm Aware Super's investment policy changes
“However, Aware Super told The Conversation that current fossil fuel screens in place for its 'socially conscious' investment options 'remain unchanged'.”
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — No evidence in archive to verify Aware Super's fossil fuel screening status
“Vanguard was then hit with a record $12.9 million penalty, after it was found to have misled investors about its $1 billion ethical bond fund.”
PENDING
“The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has again made greenwashing one of its enforcement priorities for the next year. The watchdog predicts misleading environmental claims will 'continue, if not increase' as Australia transitions toward 'net zero' emissions.”
PENDING
“If you’ve chosen a 'sustainable' or 'socially responsible' option because you care about particular issues, it’s worth checking if the fine print in your fund meets your expectations.”
PENDING
“None of this means sustainable investing is a bad idea. In fact, research suggests companies investing in sustainable and socially responsible activities tend to be better governed – and that this is more often than not good for shareholders too.”
PENDING
“Active Super was ordered to pay $10.5 million in a third greenwashing case. The court found Active Super’s marketing claimed it had eliminated investments in areas like gambling, coal mining and oil tar sands – when it hadn’t.”
PENDING
“Mercer Super was fined $11.3 million after admitting it made misleading statements about its 'sustainable plus' options.”
PENDING
“Just last month, the Environmental Defenders Office lodged a complaint with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) about industry fund UniSuper. The complaint came after UniSuper halved the environmental revenue threshold for its 'global environmental opportunities' product – from 40% to 20%.”
PENDING