Home > Super fund support for Woodside and Santos’ climate-wrecking expansion plans

Super fund support for Woodside and Santos’ climate-wrecking expansion plans

12 September 2023

12 September 2023

Our latest analysis shows members of Australia’s biggest super funds own a significant stake in some of Australia’s worst climate criminals, Woodside and Santos. For the first time, we’ve paired our investment analysis with share voting data to identify which super funds are using the retirement savings of millions of members to support these companies’ climate wrecking fossil fuel expansion plans.

Woodside and Santos are hell bent on nothing more than expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Yet many super funds – which are responsible for investing our retirement savings for a stable future – are pouring more money into these climate wreckers and failing to use their leverage as investors to demand and deliver an end to their rampant fossil fuel expansion plans.

Our analysis of the default investment options of Australia’s 30 biggest super funds found these options collectively invest:*

$5.4 billion of members’ retirement savings in Australia’s biggest climate wrecker, Woodside, owning 8% of the company’s shares
$2.1 billion of members’ retirement savings in fellow oil and gas expander Santos (9%).

We’ve also found that while some super funds have been using their investments to vote for climate action at these companies’ annual general meetings (AGMs), many have let Santos and Woodside get away with their dirty and destructive plans.

Check out the tables below to see how your super fund’s investments in Woodside and Santos changed in 2022, and if your fund has used your retirement savings to support or oppose these climate wreckers’ oil and gas expansion plans.

Take action today: tell your fund to start taking climate action seriously by stopping fossil fuel expansion.

* Based on the latest portfolio holdings disclosures and the ASX closing price of Woodside and Santos shares as at 30 December 2022.

Take action

Tell your super fund to deliver an end to fossil fuel expansion.

Super fund*
Name*
First Last
Email Address*
Hidden
Generic email
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name and the name of your super fund will be added automatically)
As a member, I am writing to demand that our fund immediately escalates pressure on Woodside and Santos by publicly demanding an end to their fossil fuel expansion plans and divesting from these companies should they fail to comply. New analysis has revealed that the default investment options of Australia’s 30 largest super funds collectively own 8% of Woodside’s shares and 9% of Santos’ shares.[1] While some funds have been using their investments to vote for climate action at these companies’ annual general meetings (AGMs), many have let Santos and Woodside continue to get away with their dirty and destructive plans. Woodside and Santos are hell-bent on expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Yet many super funds are pouring more money into these climate wreckers and failing to use their leverage as investors to demand and deliver an end to their rampant fossil fuel expansion plans. After a record 49% of investors voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 and an unprecedented 35% of investors voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane this year, the company has clearly failed to respond to investor calls for a more ambitious climate strategy and is instead pushing ahead with a new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, a 37% vote against Santos’ climate plan in 2022 followed by 18% of investors telling Santos to ditch its oil and gas expansion plans this year has not deterred Santos from pursuing those reckless plans. Both Woodside and Santos are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[2] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. It is clear that investor engagement is currently failing to rein in the expansion plans of companies like Woodside and Santos, and urgent escalation measures are now needed to demonstrate consequences to these companies for continuing to push ahead with their climate-wrecking projects. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Active Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To Active Super, As an Active Super member, I am writing to demand that the fund immediately escalates pressure on Woodside and Santos by publicly demanding an end to their fossil fuel expansion plans and divesting from these companies should they fail to comply. New analysis has identified that Active Super voted against the re-election of three directors at Woodside’s annual general meeting (AGM) this year.[1] While this is a good step forward, Woodside has failed to respond to this pressure and urgent action is now needed to prevent this climate wrecker from continuing to pursue its oil and gas expansion plans. While it was disappointing to see Active Super voting in line with Santos management at the company’s AGM this year, it is pleasing to see that the fund’s default option has halved its investments in this climate wrecker in 2022. After a record 49% of investors voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 and an unprecedented 35% of investors – including Active Super – voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane this year, the company has clearly ignored investor calls for a more ambitious climate strategy and is instead pushing ahead with a new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, a 37% vote against Santos’ climate plan in 2022 followed by 18% of investors telling Santos to ditch its oil and gas expansion plans this year has not deterred Santos from pursuing those reckless plans. Woodside and Santos are hell-bent on expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Despite increased pressure on these companies from funds like Active Super voting against management at their AGMs, neither company is showing any sign of ending its oil and gas expansion plans. Both Woodside and Santos are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[2] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. It is clear that Active Super’s pressure is failing to rein in Woodside’s expansion plans, and urgent escalation measures are now needed to demonstrate consequences to both Woodside and Santos for continuing to push ahead with their climate-wrecking projects. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Australian Retirement Trust
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To Australian Retirement Trust (ART), As an ART member, I am writing to demand that the fund immediately escalates pressure on Woodside and Santos by publicly demanding an end to their fossil fuel expansion plans and divesting from these companies should they fail to comply. New analysis has identified that ART voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane at the company’s annual general meeting (AGM) this year.[1] While this is a good step forward, Woodside has failed to respond to this pressure and urgent action is now needed to prevent this climate wrecker from continuing to pursue its oil and gas expansion plans. It is disappointing to see that ART voted in line with Santos management in 2022 and 2023, despite this company showing no signs of curbing its expansion plans which would lock in increased emissions for decades to come. After a record 49% of investors voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 and an unprecedented 35% of investors – including ART – voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane this year, the company has clearly ignored investor calls for a more ambitious climate strategy and is instead pushing ahead with a new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, a 37% vote against Santos’ climate plan in 2022 followed by 18% of investors telling Santos to ditch its oil and gas expansion plans this year has not deterred Santos from pursuing those reckless plans. Woodside and Santos are hell-bent on expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Despite increased pressure on these companies from funds like ART voting against management at their AGMs, neither company is showing any sign of ending its oil and gas expansion plans. Both Woodside and Santos are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[2] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. It is clear that ART’s pressure is failing to rein in Woodside’s expansion plans, and urgent escalation measures are now needed to demonstrate consequences to both Woodside and Santos for continuing to push ahead with their climate-wrecking projects. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
AustralianSuper
Note: This will send a formal complaint to AustralianSuper.
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To AustralianSuper, As a member of AustralianSuper, I would like to make a formal complaint. I was appalled to learn that after voting against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022, AustralianSuper failed to escalate pressure on Woodside this year and instead voted in line with the company’s management on every item at its annual general meeting (AGM). The fund must take immediate action to rectify this by publicly demanding an end to Woodside’s oil and gas expansion plans and divest from this company should it fail to comply. New analysis has identified that AustralianSuper bought tens of millions of shares in Woodside in 2022, yet failed to use this increased leverage to vote for climate action at Woodside’s AGM this year.[1] AustralianSuper has been identified as the only fund that voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 but disclosed no votes against management in 2023. An unprecedented 35% of investors voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane this year, yet AustralianSuper threw its full support behind Woodside’s board. By doing so, AustralianSuper has signalled its tacit approval of the company’s oil and gas expansion strategy. Woodside has since decided to proceed with a dirty new oil field that is expected to cause 215 million tonnes of carbon emissions over its lifetime, equivalent to almost half of Australia’s annual emissions.[2] Both Woodside and Santos are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[3] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. AustralianSuper must demand and deliver an end to the expansion plans of Woodside and Santos in line with the fund’s own commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 and support for the Paris climate goals. I look forward to a resolution to my complaint within two weeks. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/woodside-trion-oil-field-final-investment-decision/ [3] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Aware Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To Aware Super, As an Aware Super member, I am writing to demand that the fund immediately escalates pressure on Woodside and Santos by publicly demanding an end to their fossil fuel expansion plans and divesting from these companies should they fail to comply. New analysis has identified that Aware Super voted against the re-election of three directors at Woodside’s annual general meeting (AGM) this year, as well as against the re-election of company director Yasmin Allen and the remuneration report at Santos.[1] While this is a good step forward, Woodside and Santos have failed to respond to this pressure and urgent action is now needed to prevent these climate wreckers from continuing to pursue their oil and gas expansion plans. After a record 49% of investors voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 and an unprecedented 35% of investors – including Aware Super – voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane this year, the company has clearly ignored investor calls for a more ambitious climate strategy and is instead pushing ahead with a new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, a 37% vote against Santos’ climate plan in 2022 followed by 18% of investors telling Santos to ditch its oil and gas expansion plans this year has not deterred Santos from pursuing those reckless plans. Woodside and Santos are hell-bent on expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Despite increased pressure on these companies from funds like Aware Super voting against management at their AGMs, neither company is showing any sign of ending its oil and gas expansion plans. Both Woodside and Santos are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[2] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. It is clear that Aware Super’s pressure is failing to rein in Woodside and Santos’ expansion plans, and urgent escalation measures are now needed to demonstrate consequences to these companies for continuing to push ahead with their climate-wrecking projects. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Cbus
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To Cbus, As a Cbus member, I am writing to demand that the fund immediately escalates pressure on Woodside and Santos by publicly demanding an end to their fossil fuel expansion plans and divesting from these companies should they fail to comply. New analysis has identified that Cbus voted against the re-election of Woodside director Larry Archibald and the company’s remuneration report at its annual general meeting (AGM) this year, as well as against the re-election of two directors and the remuneration report at Santos.[1] While this is a good step forward, Woodside and Santos have failed to respond to this pressure and urgent action is now needed to prevent these climate wreckers from continuing to pursue their oil and gas expansion plans. After a record 49% of investors – including Cbus – voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 and an unprecedented 35% of investors voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane this year, the company has clearly ignored investor calls for a more ambitious climate strategy and is instead pushing ahead with a new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, a 37% vote against Santos’ climate plan in 2022 followed by 18% of investors telling Santos to ditch its oil and gas expansion plans this year has not deterred Santos from pursuing those reckless plans. Woodside and Santos are hell-bent on expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Despite increased pressure on these companies from funds like Cbus voting against management at their AGMs, neither company is showing any sign of ending its oil and gas expansion plans. Both Woodside and Santos are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[2] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. It is clear that Cbus’ pressure is failing to rein in Woodside and Santos’ expansion plans, and urgent escalation measures are now needed to demonstrate consequences to these companies for continuing to push ahead with their climate-wrecking projects. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
GESB
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To GESB, As a GESB member, I am writing to demand that the fund immediately escalates pressure on Woodside and Santos by publicly demanding an end to their fossil fuel expansion plans and divesting from these companies should they fail to comply. New analysis has revealed that the default investment options of Australia’s 30 largest super funds collectively own 8% of Woodside’s shares and 9% of Santos’ shares.[1] While some funds have been using their investments to vote for climate action at these companies’ annual general meetings (AGMs), many have let Santos and Woodside continue to get away with their dirty and destructive plans. Disappointingly, GESB was one of the funds which voted in favour of both Woodside and Santos’ appalling climate plans in 2022, and has not disclosed how it voted at these companies this year. Woodside and Santos are hell-bent on expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Yet many super funds are pouring more money into these climate wreckers and failing to use their leverage as investors to demand and deliver an end to their rampant fossil fuel expansion plans. After a record 49% of investors voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 and an unprecedented 35% of investors voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane this year, the company has clearly failed to respond to investor calls for a more ambitious climate strategy and is instead pushing ahead with a new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, a 37% vote against Santos’ climate plan in 2022 followed by 18% of investors telling Santos to ditch its oil and gas expansion plans this year has not deterred Santos from pursuing those reckless plans. Both Woodside and Santos are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[2] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. It is clear that investor engagement is currently failing to rein in the expansion plans of companies like Woodside and Santos, and urgent escalation measures are now needed to demonstrate consequences to these companies for continuing to push ahead with their climate-wrecking projects. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
HESTA
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To HESTA, As a HESTA member, I am writing to demand that the fund immediately escalates pressure on Woodside by publishing a timeline for divestment from this climate wrecker, and escalates pressure on Santos by publicly demanding an end to its fossil fuel expansion plans and divesting from this company should it fail to comply. New analysis has identified that HESTA voted against the re-election of three directors and for the ‘capital protection’ shareholder resolution at Woodside’s annual general meeting (AGM) this year, as well as against the re-election of company director Janine McArdle and for the ‘capital protection’ shareholder resolution at Santos.[1] While this is a good step forward, Woodside and Santos have failed to respond to this pressure and urgent action is now needed to prevent these climate wreckers from continuing to pursue their oil and gas expansion plans. After a record 49% of investors voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 and an unprecedented 35% of investors – including HESTA – voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane this year, the company has clearly ignored investor calls for a more ambitious climate strategy and is instead pushing ahead with a new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, a 37% vote against Santos’ climate plan in 2022 followed by 18% of investors telling Santos to ditch its oil and gas expansion plans this year has not deterred Santos from pursuing those reckless plans. Woodside and Santos are hell-bent on expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Despite increased pressure on these companies from funds like HESTA voting against management at their AGMs, neither company is showing any sign of ending its oil and gas expansion plans. Both Woodside and Santos are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[2] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. It is clear that HESTA’s pressure is failing to rein in Woodside and Santos’ expansion plans, and urgent escalation measures are now needed to demonstrate consequences to these companies for continuing to push ahead with their climate-wrecking projects. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Hostplus
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To Hostplus, As a Hostplus member, I am writing to demand that the fund immediately escalates pressure on Woodside and Santos by publicly demanding an end to their fossil fuel expansion plans and divesting from these companies should they fail to comply. New analysis has identified Hostplus to be the only fund out of Australia’s 30 biggest super funds that has disclosed votes in line with management on all items at both Woodside and Santos’ annual general meetings (AGMs) in 2022 and 2023.[1] This is appalling behaviour for a fund with a target to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, as Woodside and Santos are hell-bent on expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Both companies are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[2] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. It is clear that urgent escalation measures are now needed to demonstrate consequences to both Woodside and Santos for continuing to push ahead with their climate-wrecking projects. Hostplus must demand and deliver an end to the oil and gas expansion plans of Woodside and Santos in line with its own climate commitments. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Rest
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To Rest, As a Rest member, I am writing to demand that the fund immediately escalates pressure on Woodside and Santos by publicly demanding an end to their fossil fuel expansion plans and divesting from these companies should they fail to comply. New analysis has identified that Rest voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane and for the ‘capital protection’ shareholder resolution at the company’s annual general meeting (AGM) this year, as well as against the re-election of company director Janine McArdle and for the ‘capital protection’ shareholder resolution at Santos.[1] While this is a good step forward, Woodside and Santos have failed to respond to this pressure and urgent action is now needed to prevent these climate wreckers from continuing to pursue their oil and gas expansion plans. After a record 49% of investors voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 and an unprecedented 35% of investors – including Rest – voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane this year, the company has clearly ignored investor calls for a more ambitious climate strategy and is instead pushing ahead with a new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, a 37% vote against Santos’ climate plan in 2022 followed by 18% of investors telling Santos to ditch its oil and gas expansion plans this year has not deterred Santos from pursuing those reckless plans. Woodside and Santos are hell-bent on expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Despite increased pressure on these companies from funds like Rest voting against management at their AGMs, neither company is showing any sign of ending its oil and gas expansion plans. Both Woodside and Santos are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[2] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. It is clear that Rest’s pressure is failing to rein in Woodside and Santos’ expansion plans, and urgent escalation measures are now needed to demonstrate consequences to these companies for continuing to push ahead with their climate-wrecking projects. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Spirit Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To Spirit Super, As a Spirit Super member, I am writing to demand that the fund immediately escalates pressure on Woodside and Santos by publicly demanding an end to their fossil fuel expansion plans and divesting from these companies should they fail to comply. New analysis has identified that Spirit Super voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane and against the company’s remuneration report at its annual general meeting (AGM) this year.[1] While this is a good step forward, Woodside has failed to respond to this pressure and urgent action is now needed to prevent this climate wrecker from continuing to pursue its oil and gas expansion plans. It is disappointing to see that Spirit Super voted in line with Santos management in 2022 and 2023, despite this company showing no signs of curbing its expansion plans which would lock in increased emissions for decades to come. After a record 49% of investors voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 and an unprecedented 35% of investors – including Sprit Super – voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane this year, the company has clearly ignored investor calls for a more ambitious climate strategy and is instead pushing ahead with a new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, a 37% vote against Santos’ climate plan in 2022 followed by 18% of investors telling Santos to ditch its oil and gas expansion plans this year has not deterred Santos from pursuing those reckless plans. Woodside and Santos are hell-bent on expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Despite increased pressure on these companies from funds like Spirit Super voting against management at their AGMs, neither company is showing any sign of ending its oil and gas expansion plans. Both Woodside and Santos are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[2] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. It is clear that Spirit Super’s pressure is failing to rein in Woodside’s expansion plans, and urgent escalation measures are now needed to demonstrate consequences to both Woodside and Santos for continuing to push ahead with their climate-wrecking projects. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
UniSuper
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To UniSuper, As a UniSuper member, I am writing to demand that our fund immediately escalates pressure on Woodside and Santos by publicly demanding an end to their fossil fuel expansion plans and divesting its remaining holdings in these companies should they fail to comply. New analysis has revealed that the default investment options of Australia’s 30 largest super funds collectively own 8% of Woodside’s shares and 9% of Santos’ shares.[1] While some funds have been using their investments to vote for climate action at these companies’ annual general meetings (AGMs), many have let Santos and Woodside continue to get away with their dirty and destructive plans. Woodside and Santos are hell-bent on expanding oil and gas, shrugging off dire warnings from climate scientists and ignoring the community‘s demands for a safe climate future. Yet many super funds are pouring more money into these climate wreckers and failing to use their leverage as investors to demand and deliver an end to their rampant fossil fuel expansion plans. After a record 49% of investors voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 and an unprecedented 35% of investors voted against the re-election of Woodside director Ian Macfarlane this year, the company has clearly failed to respond to investor calls for a more ambitious climate strategy and is instead pushing ahead with a new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, a 37% vote against Santos’ climate plan in 2022 followed by 18% of investors telling Santos to ditch its oil and gas expansion plans this year has not deterred Santos from pursuing those reckless plans. Both Woodside and Santos are aiming to significantly ramp up oil and gas production this decade, which would see Woodside’s emissions increase by 40% by 2027 and Santos’ emissions increase by 40% by 2030, even assuming the full implementation of these companies’ utterly inadequate emissions reduction targets.[2] Urgent emissions reduction efforts are required to meet global climate goals such as net zero by 2050 and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and any company with plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry is out of line with these goals. It is clear that investor engagement is currently failing to rein in the expansion plans of companies like Woodside and Santos, and urgent escalation measures are now needed to demonstrate consequences to these companies for continuing to push ahead with their climate-wrecking projects. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ [2] https://www.marketforces.org.au/investors/investor-briefing-woodside-santos-march-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Vision Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(Your name will be added automatically)
To Vision Super, As a Vision Super member, I am writing to request that the fund escalates pressure on Woodside and Santos by publicly detailing a pathway to exiting its remaining holdings in these companies. New analysis has identified that Vision Super voted against management's recommendations on almost all items at Woodside and Santos' annual general meetings (AGMs) this year.[1] Further to this, by joining other investors in filing shareholder statements at Woodside this year, Vision Super has set a clear example for other funds to follow. While I appreciate Vision Super’s efforts in opposing Woodside and Santos’ oil and gas expansion plans, further action must now be taken as it is clear that Vision Super’s active ownership tools have failed to elicit a response from these companies, which are showing no signs of reining in their expansion plans. I am calling on Vision Super to escalate pressure on Woodside and Santos by publishing a pathway to exit the fund’s remaining holdings in these companies. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-investments-voting-woodside-santos-analysis-2023/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message for members of ethical funds (Australian Ethical, Cruelty Free Super, Future Super, Verve Super) and NGS Super
Good news! Your fund does not invest in Woodside or Santos.
Of course I want to get updates about this campaign from Market Forces!
- Of course I want to get updates about this campaign from Market Forces!
Hidden
TOOK ACTION: Super – Exposure to and voting at Woodside and Santos – Sep 2023
- TOOK ACTION: Super – Exposure to and voting at Woodside and Santos – Sep 2023

Investors missing in action at Woodside

While many super funds opposed Woodside’s utterly inadequate climate plans in 2022, some of them have since painted themselves silly with Woodside’s greenwash by throwing more money behind its disastrous oil and gas expansion plans and failing to vote against the company’s management this year.

Both AustralianSuper and Hostplus voted with management on every 2023 AGM item. Brighter Super, Commonwealth Super Corp, GESB, MLC, Russell Investments and Super SA have not disclosed how they voted. AMP, Colonial First State, Commbank Group Super, Insignia Financial, Mercer and OnePath, State Super and UniSuper all disclosed ‘split’ votes on some AGM items.

The worst offender was Australia’s biggest super fund: AustralianSuper. Our previous analysis estimated AustralianSuper bought more than 20 million shares in Woodside in its default option in the six months to June 2022. In the second half of 2022, this option increased its Woodside holdings by another 11.5 million shares. Across all investment options, AustralianSuper now owns a whopping 85 million shares in Woodside, or 4.5% of the company, meaning AustralianSuper is among Woodside’s top five investors. However, AustralianSuper has failed to use this increased leverage to demand an end to Woodside’s fossil fuel expansion plans.

Despite voting against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022, AustralianSuper backpedalled this year by voting with management on every AGM item, including for the re-election of director Ian Macfarlane. By throwing its full support behind Woodside’s board, AustralianSuper has signalled its tacit approval of the company’s oil and gas expansion strategy. Woodside has since decided to proceed with a dirty new oil field that is expected to cause 215 million tonnes of carbon emissions over its lifetime, equivalent to almost half of Australia’s annual emissions.

Support for Santos

Despite plans that would see its overall emissions increase 40% by 2030, Santos has enjoyed even more support from major super funds at its AGMs. These funds increased their investment in Santos in 2022, and voted with management on every item in 2023:

ART**
CareSuper
ESSSuper
Hostplus**
Mercer
Spirit Super

Brighter Super, MLC and Russell Investments increased their investments and have not disclosed how they voted. AMP increased its investments and disclosed split votes.

** Increased shareholdings can at least partly be explained by mergers with other funds

Investment exposure to Woodside lower than the benchmark, while funds are selling shares in Santos

Almost all super funds in our study owned more Woodside shares in their default options in December 2022 than in 2021, but as our October 2022 analysis identified, many super funds received Woodside shares from the company’s merger with BHP’s petroleum business, and some funds gained further Woodside shares through mergers with other funds. However, funds like AustralianSuper bought further shares in this climate wrecker on top of shares received through mergers. This new analysis shows AustralianSuper has continued that trend of buying more shares in Woodside, while others have gone in the opposite direction and reduced their stake. The default investment options of Commonwealth Bank Group Super and GESB, for instance, both owned less Woodside shares in December 2022 than they did in December 2021. NGS Super publicly ditched all of its shares in Woodside and Santos in 2022, becoming the first industry super fund to do so.

While the average exposure to Woodside as a proportion of Australian share investments (listed equities) in December 2021 – 1.04% – was higher than the ASX200 benchmark weight of 0.99% at the same date, the average exposure in December 2022 – 2.97% – was lower than the ASX200 benchmark weight of 3.19% at the same date. This dip below the benchmark weight, paired with the voting information further below showing several super funds are starting to ramp up the pressure on Woodside, suggests some super funds are getting fed up with the company’s reckless oil and gas expansion plans. This leaves AustralianSuper, with its massive Woodside share buy up and failure to vote against management in 2023, as a major outlier.

Our analysis also found that the default options of 15 out of the 30 funds in this analysis owned less shares in Santos in December 2022 than December 2021. While this may be in part explained by Santos’ share buyback scheme, it’s clear a significant number of super funds are actively selling down shares in this climate wrecker. Santos’ ASX200 weight was 0.90% at 31 December 2021 and 1.13% at 31 December 2022.

The two tables below outline the 30 biggest super funds’ ownership of Woodside and Santos in their default (or largest) investment options at both 31 December 2021 and 31 December 2022. For each investment option, we have calculated the ownership of these two companies as a proportion of Australian share investments, identified the actual number of shares in each company, and finally, identified the actual and relative change in the number of shares over 2022.

Woodside share ownership changes (proportional and actual) in the default investment options of Australia’s 30 biggest super funds, December 2021 to December 2022

wdt_ID	Fund	Option	% Aus listed equities, December 2021	% Aus listed equities, December 2022	# shares, December 2021	# shares, December 2022	Change # shares	Relative difference # shares
1	Active Super	High Growth	0.86%	2.80%	368,009	689,099	321,090	87%
2	AMP	MySuper 1970s	1.45%	3.83%	890,179	1,854,968	964,789	108%
3	Australian Retirement Trust	Lifecycle Balanced Pool	1.12%	3.41%	5,893,538	11,741,054	5,847,516	99%
4	AustralianSuper	Balanced	0.18%	5.06%	2,920,141	54,356,970	51,436,829	1761%
5	Aware Super	High Growth	0.72%	2.88%	4,405,219	11,192,919	6,787,700	154%
6	Brighter Super	MySuper	1.11%	3.45%	1,213,276	2,543,403	1,330,127	110%
7	CareSuper	Balanced My Super	0.49%	2.80%	719,754	2,401,738	1,681,984	234%
8	Cbus	Growth	1.10%	2.59%	5,211,870	8,633,329	3,421,459	66%
9	Colonial First State	FirstChoice Wholesale Growth	0.91%	3.87%	131,584	596,868	465,284	354%
10	Commonwealth Bank Group Super	Balanced	1.60%	2.44%	474,080	400,119	-73,961	-16%

* Equipsuper did not disclose the number of shares for each investment item in its December 2021 portfolio holdings disclosure.
^ State Super did not disclose its portfolio holdings in December 2021.
See methodology for detailed notes on our approach to calculating total Australian listed equity exposure.

Santos share ownership changes (proportional and actual) in the default investment options of Australia’s 30 biggest super funds, December 2021 to December 2022

wdt_ID	Fund	Option	% Aus listed equities, December 2021	% Aus listed equities, December 2022	# shares, December 2021	# shares, December 2022	Change # shares	Relative difference # shares
243	Active Super	High Growth	2.41	1.44	3,577,864	1,758,025	-1,819,839	-51
244	AMP	MySuper 1970s	1.38	1.89	2,945,243	4,532,211	1,586,968	54
245	Australian Retirement Trust	Lifecycle Balanced Pool	1.00	1.07	18,203,035	18,367,508	164,473	1
246	AustralianSuper	Balanced	0.20	0.15	11,393,382	7,856,299	-3,537,083	-31
247	Aware Super	High Growth	1.17	1.51	24,724,863	29,077,619	4,352,756	18
248	Brighter Super	MySuper	1.05	1.21	3,985,377	4,443,344	457,967	12
249	CareSuper	Balanced My Super	1.17	1.51	6,008,858	6,430,466	421,608	7
250	Cbus	Growth	1.64	1.86	26,984,838	30,834,132	3,849,294	14
251	Colonial First State	FirstChoice Wholesale Growth	2.45	1.40	1,228,593	1,071,926	-156,667	-13
252	Commonwealth Bank Group Super	Balanced	2.54	2.02	2,618,328	1,639,491	-978,837	-37

Take action: Tell your super fund to stop propping up companies expanding fossil fuels

Some funds are finally escalating pressure by voting against the re-election of Woodside and Santos company directors

Many funds have escalated pressure on Woodside this year by voting against management on key items at the company’s AGM. While some funds are yet to disclose 2023 votes, 11 super funds in our analysis voted against the re-election of company director Ian Macfarlane this year, which contributed to the massive 35% shareholder vote against his re-election. A further seven funds recorded ‘split’ votes, where at least some of their shares were voted against Macfarlane. This comes after a record 49% vote against Woodside’s utterly inadequate climate plan in 2022. However, some super funds failed to back up their 2022 vote with further action in 2023, after Woodside clearly ignored investor calls for a more ambitious climate strategy.

AustralianSuper comes out on top as the worst offender, having been the only fund in our analysis that voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 but disclosed no votes against management in 2023. Even BlackRock – the world’s second biggest investor in fossil fuels and a renowned climate laggard – voted against the re-election of director Ian Macfarlane on climate grounds. Several Vanguard funds also voted against the re-election of Macfarlane, as well as the re-election of two other directors and the remuneration report.

UniSuper and State Super recorded a ‘split’ vote on both the re-election of Ian Macfarlane and Larry Archibald, meaning at least some of their shares were likely used to vote against those two directors. While both Cbus and Mine Super voted against Woodside’s climate plan in 2022 but threw their support behind Ian Macfarlane this year, Cbus voted against the re-election of Larry Archibald and against the remuneration report, whilst Mine Super also voted against the remuneration report.

Yes, you read that right – the super fund for the mining industry voted against Woodside management on their remuneration arrangements while AustralianSuper instead backed them in. AustralianSuper’s failure to escalate pressure on Woodside this year puts the fund in similar territory to perennial climate laggard Hostplus, which has consistently voted against climate action, as shown below. Commonwealth Super Corp and Super SA don’t disclose their proxy voting activity, while GESB also doesn’t disclose votes unless members specifically request them.

Vision Super has consistently voted for climate action at companies like Woodside and Santos and has joined further investor efforts to ramp up pressure, setting a clear example for other funds to follow. This year, HESTA has significantly stepped up its voting at these companies, with Aware Super and Cbus also showing improvement.

However, these efforts have not been enough to shake Santos and Woodside from their climate wrecking expansion plans, and much more needs to be done. HESTA placed Woodside and Santos on an engagement ‘watchlist’ a year ago, asking these companies to demonstrate how their new or proposed fossil fuel projects fit within a 1.5°C emissions reduction scenario. Even after HESTA voted against management at Woodside’s AGM this year, the fossil fuel company decided to proceed with a new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, a project clearly out of line with the 1.5°C Paris goal. HESTA members have been signing onto an open letter to the fund in response to this, demanding immediate escalation action from HESTA.

Interestingly, all funds that recorded votes against Santos’ inadequate climate plan in 2022 escalated their voting behaviour in some capacity this year, with Aware Super, Cbus, HESTA, Rest and Vision Super voting against management on at least two items, such as the re-election of directors, the remuneration report and the Market Forces-coordinated ‘capital protection’ shareholder resolution. NGS Super also voted against Santos’ climate plan last year, backing that up with the ultimate escalation measure of publicly divesting from Santos soon after. These funds are leaving those that continue to vote with Santos’ management as clear laggards that are failing to back up their climate and active ownership claims with action.

The tables below identify how Australia’s 30 biggest super funds voted on Santos and Woodside’s climate plans in 2022, as well as how they voted on the re-election of directors, against the companies’ remuneration arrangements, and for the ‘capital protection’ shareholder resolution.

Voting activity of Australia’s 30 biggest super funds at Woodside’s 2022 and 2023 annual general meetings

wdt_ID	Fund	2022: Climate report	2023: Re-elect Ian Macfarlane	2023: Re-elect Larry Archibald	2023: Re-elect Swee Chen Goh	2023: Remuneration report	2023: Capital protection resolution
1	Active Super	AGAINST	AGAINST	AGAINST	AGAINST	FOR	AGAINST
2	AMP	SPLIT	SPLIT	FOR	FOR	FOR	SPLIT
3	Australian Retirement Trust	AGAINST	AGAINST	FOR	FOR	FOR	AGAINST
4	AustralianSuper	AGAINST	FOR	FOR	FOR	FOR	AGAINST
5	Aware Super	AGAINST	AGAINST	AGAINST	AGAINST	FOR	ABSTAIN
6	Brighter Super	FOR	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
7	CareSuper	SPLIT	AGAINST	FOR	FOR	FOR	AGAINST
8	Cbus	AGAINST	FOR	AGAINST	FOR	AGAINST	AGAINST
9	Colonial First State	SPLIT	SPLIT	SPLIT	SPLIT	SPLIT	SPLIT
10	Commbank Group Super	FOR	SPLIT	FOR	FOR	FOR	AGAINST

* Neither Insignia Financial nor OnePath differentiates between ‘against’ or ‘abstain’ votes, so both funds’ votes on the ‘capital protection’ resolution in 2023 are noted as ‘split,’ but it’s possible those votes are either entirely ‘against’ or ‘abstain,’ except in the case of Insignia’s vote on this resolution at Woodside’s 2023 AGM whereby one vote was recorded as ‘for.’
^ NGS Super divested from Woodside in 2022 and therefore had no shares in this company to vote with in 2023

Key: ND – votes not disclosed | NH – shares not held | SPLIT – A fund’s asset managers have voted different ways on the same item, e.g. both FOR and AGAINST

Voting activity of Australia’s 30 biggest super funds at Santos’ 2022 and 2023 annual general meetings

wdt_ID	Fund	2022: Climate report	2023: Re-elect Yasmin Allen	2023: Re-elect Guy Cowan	2023: Re-elect Janine McArdle	2023: Remuneration report	2023: Capital protection resolution
1	Active Super	FOR	FOR	FOR	FOR	FOR	AGAINST
2	AMP	SPLIT	SPLIT	SPLIT	FOR	SPLIT	SPLIT
3	Australian Retirement Trust	FOR	FOR	FOR	FOR	FOR	AGAINST
4	AustralianSuper	FOR	FOR	FOR	FOR	FOR	AGAINST
5	Aware Super	AGAINST	AGAINST	FOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
6	Brighter Super	FOR	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
7	CareSuper	FOR	FOR	FOR	FOR	FOR	AGAINST
8	Cbus	AGAINST	AGAINST	AGAINST	FOR	AGAINST	AGAINST
9	Colonial First State	SPLIT	SPLIT	SPLIT	SPLIT	SPLIT	SPLIT
10	Commbank Group Super	SPLIT	FOR	SPLIT	FOR	FOR	AGAINST

* Neither Insignia Financial nor OnePath differentiates between ‘against’ or ‘abstain’ votes, so both funds’ votes on the ‘capital protection’ resolution in 2023 are noted as ‘split,’ but it’s possible those votes are either entirely ‘against’ or ‘abstain.
^ NGS Super divested from Santos in 2022 and therefore had no shares in this company to vote with in 2023

Key: ND – votes not disclosed | NH – shares not held | SPLIT – A fund’s asset managers have voted different ways on the same item, e.g. both FOR and AGAINST

Take action! Contact your super fund and demand an end to fossil fuel expansion

Methodology and further information

Scope

The scope of our analysis covers the default (or largest) investment option of Australia’s largest 30 super funds by assets under management (AUM), according to APRA’s June 2022 fund-level superannuation statistics. Further to these APRA-regulated funds, our analysis includes any state-regulated funds with AUM large enough to be included in the top 30 list.

Where mergers between super funds have occurred since June 2022, the single merged entity is listed on the table and occupies only one position on the table, unless the merged funds were found to have clearly separate default options with different investments.

The final analysis pertains to 30 funds. HUB24, Netwealth and Macquarie were excluded as they do not appear to have default investment options comparable to the rest of those captured in the study.

Process

Portfolio holdings disclosures were collected for the final 30 superannuation fund options (see sources below). These holdings were filtered for Australian listed equities, and each option’s investments in Woodside and Santos were identified. The investment exposure to both Woodside and Santos was then calculated as a percentage of total Australian listed equities in each option, using portfolio holdings disclosures effective as at 31 December 2021 and 31 December 2022.

To calculate the biggest 30 super funds’ ownership of Woodside and Santos in their default options, the total number of shares in each of these companies across the 30 investment options was calculated, then divided by the total number of issued and fully paid shares as at 31 December 2022, according to Woodside and Santos’ 2022 annual reporting.

To calculate AustralianSuper’s total interest in Woodside, the portfolio holdings disclosure for each investment option effective 30 December 2022 was collected. The total number of Woodside shares across all options was calculated and then divided by the total number of issued and fully paid Woodside shares as at 31 December 2022, according to Woodside’s 2022 annual report.

Since ASX200 weights are not publicly available, references to historical weights are approximations from portfolio holdings in a fully replicating ASX200 ETF (ASX:IOZ).

All 30 funds were provided with this full analysis ahead of publication and provided the opportunity to engage with and respond to any findings.

State Super provided a different figure for the total value of Australian listed equities in its Balanced option than the figure Market Forces calculated, resulting in an exposure at 31 December 2022 to Woodside of 3.3% and an exposure to Santos of 2.1%, by State Super’s calculations. State Super did not provide further information for Market Forces to verify these figures.

Sources

Portfolio holdings disclosures

Portfolio holdings disclosures were sourced from each fund’s website:

wdt_ID	Fund	Investment option profiled
1	Active Super	Accelerator - High Growth
2	AMP	MySuper 1970s
3	Australian Retirement Trust	Lifecycle Balanced Pool
4	AustralianSuper	Balanced
5	Aware Super	High Growth
6	Brighter Super	MySuper
7	CareSuper	Balanced (MySuper)
8	CBUS	Growth (MySuper)
9	Colonial First State	FirstChoice Wholesale Growth
10	CommBank Group Super	Accumulate Plus - Balanced

Voting data

Voting data was sourced from each fund’s website as well as a subscription service, Diligent.

Disclaimer

The information provided by Market Forces does not constitute financial advice. The information is presented in order to inform people motivated by environmental concerns and take actions based on those concerns. Market Forces is organising data for environmental ends.

The information and actions provided by Market Forces do not account for any individual’s personal objectives, financial situation or needs. It should not be used, relied upon, or treated as a substitute for specific professional advice.

Market Forces recommends all users obtain their own independent professional advice before making any decision relating to their particular requirements or circumstances. Switching super funds may have unintended financial consequences.

For more information about Market Forces, please visit the about page of the site.

Super fund support for Woodside and Santos’ climate-wrecking expansion plans

Take action

Generic email

Active Super

Australian Retirement Trust

AustralianSuper

Aware Super

Cbus

GESB

HESTA

Hostplus

Rest

Spirit Super

UniSuper

Vision Super

Message for members of ethical funds (Australian Ethical, Cruelty Free Super, Future Super, Verve Super) and NGS Super