Home > How much is your super fund investing in climate-wrecking oil and gas companies Woodside and Santos?

How much is your super fund investing in climate-wrecking oil and gas companies Woodside and Santos?

12 April 2022

Finally, after years of delay, super funds now have to disclose all their investments. The recent release of this information reveals all of the big super funds are investing members’ money in two of Australia’s most climate-destructive companies, gas giants Woodside and Santos.

We have analysed the investment holdings of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds, and discovered exactly how much of members’ money these funds are investing in Australia’s two largest oil and gas companies. Despite many of these super funds claiming to support the goals of the Paris Agreement and net zero emissions by 2050, all are still invested in these two climate wrecking-companies, both of which have oil and gas expansions plans that are incompatible with the climate goals super funds claim to support.

Some super funds that position themselves as climate leaders are more exposed to Woodside and/or Santos than the industry average. HESTA, for example, had the highest investment exposure to Woodside (in its ‘Balanced Growth’ investment option) in our study. We also found that Santos now shows up in the top 25 Australian shareholdings of UniSuper’s ‘Balanced’ investment option, despite the fund publicly announcing it had significantly sold down investments in gas companies last year. What’s worse, most of these funds have also voted against calls for real climate action at Woodside and Santos last year.

The good news is super funds will soon have crucial opportunities to bring these companies into line. Market Forces has supported shareholders to lodge proposals at Woodside and Santos, calling on these companies to disclose how they will wind up oil and gas production in line with a net zero emissions by 2050 pathway. Super funds could significantly influence the outcome of the votes on these proposals at these companies’ annual general meetings (AGMs) in May, and pressure from members like you can ensure these super funds use your retirement savings to vote in favour of a safe climate.

How much does your super fund invest in Woodside and Santos, and did it vote against crucial climate proposals last year? Find out below and take action!

Take action

Tell your super fund to stop investing in Woodside and Santos and their climate-wrecking expansion plans.

Super fund*
Name*
First Last
Email Address*
Hidden
All funds (excluding ethical funds and targeted emails)
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end, and the salutation to your super fund will also be added to the top)
I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of super funds’ portfolio holdings disclosures shows that almost all of Australia’s biggest super funds are still investing in these climate-wrecking companies. What’s worse is that many funds’ exposure to Woodside and Santos is higher than these companies' weighting on the ASX 300 index! According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[1] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[2] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[3] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[4] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [2] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [3] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [4] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Great news! Your super fund does not invest in Woodside or Santos.
Media Super has merged with Cbus. Please select Cbus from the drop-down list to send them a message.
Hidden
Message to Active Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Active Super*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Active Super, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Active Super’s Accelerator/High Growth option has the fourth highest exposure to Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Aside from being well above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was almost double Santos’ weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Active Super claims to be a leader on responsible investment, so why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to AMP
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to AMP*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear AMP, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that AMP’s MySuper 1970’s option has the fourth highest exposure to Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Aside from being well above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was almost double Woodside’s weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Australian Retirement Trust (QSuper & Sunsuper)
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Australian Retirement Trust (formerly QSuper and Sunsuper)*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Australian Retirement Trust (ART), I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that ART’s Lifecycle Balanced Pool option has one of the highest exposures to Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Aside from being above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was also higher than Woodside’s weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to AustralianSuper
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to AustralianSuper*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear AustralianSuper, I am writing to you to express my sincere frustration with your failure to rule out investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosures shows AustralianSuper’s Balanced option sold down more than 40% of its Santos shares across the period 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022. While I would like to acknowledge this as a positive step towards AustralianSuper ditching companies expanding fossil fuels, the disclosures also reveal this option has increased its stake in Woodside more than 14 times over! Market Forces estimates about half of these shares were not attributable to the BHP Petroleum merger, but rather an active decision made by AustralianSuper to massively increase its stake in Woodside.[1] If this is the case, the fund has some serious explaining to do. Why has AustralianSuper changed its tune on Woodside and suddenly bought up so many shares in this climate pariah? This move flies in the face of AustralianSuper’s net zero by 2050 commitment and support for the Paris climate goals. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Woodside has recently confirmed its intention to continue pursuing the monstrous Browse offshore gas basin by way of publishing its final environmental impact statement.[6] Browse is bigger, more polluting, and would operate even longer than the already out of line Scarborough project. How can AustralianSuper continue to support a company that continues to recklessly undermine global climate ambitions? If AustralianSuper is serious about its own climate commitments, then I demand the fund make a statement publicly denouncing Scarborough, Browse, and all other proposed new oil and gas projects, and divesting from the company unless it drops all new oil and gas field development plans for good. If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to fully divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-october-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ [6] https://thewest.com.au/business/oil-gas/woodside-releases-final-environmental-report-on-browse-lng-project-c-8249002 Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Aware Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Aware Super*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Aware Super, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Aware Super’s High Growth option has a higher exposure to Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, than Santos’ weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021.[1] Aware Super claims to be a leader on responsible investment, so why are you overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to BT Financial Group
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to BT Financial Group*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear BT, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that BT’s Panorama option has a higher exposure to Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, than Woodside’s weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021.[1] Why are you overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Cbus
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Cbus*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Cbus, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Cbus’ Growth (MySuper) option has a higher than average exposure to Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] This is in spite of your stranded asset framework, which should be reducing exposure to climate-wrecking companies like Santos. Aside from being well above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was double Santos’ weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Colonial First State
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Colonial First State*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Colonial First State (CFS), I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosures shows CFS’ FirstChoice Wholesale Growth option increased its Santos shareholding by more than 6% across the period 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022. Most alarmingly, however, the disclosures also reveal this option has increased its stake in Woodside more than six times over! Market Forces estimates nearly half of these shares were not attributable to the BHP Petroleum merger, but rather an active decision made by CFS to massively increase its stake in Woodside.[1] If this is the case, the fund has some serious explaining to do. Why has CFS bought up so many shares in this climate pariah? This move flies in the face of the fund’s 2030 and 2050 climate commitments and apparent claim of alignment with the Paris climate goals. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Woodside has recently confirmed its intention to continue pursuing the monstrous Browse offshore gas basin by way of publishing its final environmental impact statement.[6] Browse is bigger, more polluting, and would operate even longer than the already out-of-line Scarborough project. How can CFS continue to support a company that continues to recklessly undermine global climate ambitions? If CFS is serious about its own climate commitments, then I demand the fund make a statement publicly denouncing Scarborough, Browse, and all other proposed new oil and gas projects, and divesting from the company unless it drops all new oil and gas field development plans for good. If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-october-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ [6] https://thewest.com.au/business/oil-gas/woodside-releases-final-environmental-report-on-browse-lng-project-c-8249002 Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Commonwealth Super Corp / PSS
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Commonwealth Super Corp / PSS*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Commonwealth Super Corp (CSC), I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that CSC’s PSS Default option has a higher exposure to Santos and Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, than these companies’ weightings on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021.[1] Why are you overexposed to these climate-wrecking companies? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Equip Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Equipsuper*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Equipsuper, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Equipsuper’s MySuper option has the third highest exposure to Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Aside from being well above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was almost double Woodside’s weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to HESTA
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to HESTA*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear HESTA, I am writing to you to request further information about HESTA’s investments in Woodside and Santos. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosures shows HESTA’s Balanced Growth option sold down more than a fifth of its Santos shares across the period 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022. Although the Balanced Growth option’s stake in Woodside has increased in real terms, Market Forces estimates the option has sold down a fifth of its Woodside shares, after taking into account shares received through the Woodside-BHP Petroleum merger.[1] It is clear that engagement with Woodside and Santos has failed to stop their rampant expansion plans. Both companies are both pursuing new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Has HESTA finally realised engagement with Woodside and Santos has failed and started escalating its action at these companies to partial divestment? Is it quietly selling down shares in response to members’ concerns? Or is the fund failing to listen to members and simply playing the market with these share sales? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, as the super fund of the health and community sector I am calling on HESTA to publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-october-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Hostplus
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Hostplus*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Hostplus, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosures shows Hostplus’ Balanced option increased its stake in Santos by more than 16% across the period 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022. Further to this, the disclosures also reveal this option almost doubled its stake in Woodside. While Market Forces estimates most of these Woodside shares are attributable to the BHP Petroleum merger, Hostplus appears to also have made an active decision to purchase even more shares in this climate wrecker.[1] If this is the case, the fund has some serious explaining to do. Why is Hostplus using members’ retirement savings to buy up shares in these climate wreckers? Supporting Woodside and Santos’ oil and gas expansion plans wildly contradicts the net zero by 2050 portfolio emissions reduction target Hostplus set earlier this year. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-october-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to IOOF
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to IOOF*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear IOOF, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. New analysis of super funds’ portfolio holdings disclosures shows that almost all of Australia’s biggest super funds are still investing in these climate-wrecking companies. What’s worse is that many funds’ exposure to Woodside and Santos is higher than these companies' weighting on the ASX 300 index! According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[1] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[2] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[3] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[4] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [2] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [3] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [4] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to MLC
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to MLC*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear MLC, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that MLC’s MySuper Growth option has an above average exposure to Woodside and Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Aside from being above the average of your peers’ exposure, these exposures were also higher than Woodside and Santos’ weightings on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you overexposed to these climate-wrecking companies? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to NGS Super
Hidden
Subject
(You can edit this)
Hidden
Your message to NGS Super*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear NGS Super, I am writing to you to express my sincere frustration with your failure to rule out investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown NGS’ Diversified (MySuper) option has the second highest exposure to Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] This is in spite of your carbon neutral portfolio by 2030 target, and apparent plans to divest from oil and gas companies. Aside from being well above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was almost double Woodside’s weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. NGS Super claims to be a leader on responsible investment, so why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? I acknowledge that you have plans to reduce investments in oil and gas companies. However, your overexposure to Santos shows you must announce these plans and put them into action now. NGS must exclude investment in all companies undermining global climate goals by expanding fossil fuels, across your entire portfolio. Recently, I also became aware that you are closing your Socially Responsible Diversified investment option, claiming that your portfolio-wide ESG integration makes this standalone option no longer necessary[2]. What will this mean for members currently in that option? Will they be reinvested in climate-wrecking companies pursuing fossil fuel expansion plans, or will you be divesting from all such companies before winding up this investment option on May 31? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[3] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[4] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[5] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[6] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. NGS should have divested from these climate wrecking companies already. But since you have not, and with the Woodside and Santos AGMs approaching, you at least have a crucial opportunity to demand these companies change course. Proposals have been put forward calling on Woodside and Santos to manage down oil and gas production in line with a net zero emissions by 2050 pathway. If you take climate action seriously, then you must vote: In favour of these ‘Capital Protection’ proposals and other climate-related shareholder proposals; Against the companies’ own climate reports; and Against the chairs of each company’s Sustainability Committee. If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/ngs-closes-socially-responsible-option-179794630 [3] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [4] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [5] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [6] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to OnePath
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to OnePath*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear OnePath, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. New analysis of super funds’ portfolio holdings disclosures shows that almost all of Australia’s biggest super funds are still investing in these climate-wrecking companies. What’s worse is that many funds’ exposure to Woodside and Santos is higher than these companies' weighting on the ASX 300 index! According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[1] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[2] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[3] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[4] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [2] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [3] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [4] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to REST
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to REST*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Rest, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Rest’s Core Strategy option has the highest exposure to Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Besides this, your exposure was almost triple Santos’ weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Suncorp Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Suncorp Super*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Suncorp, I am writing to you to express my sincere frustration with your failure to rule out investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. New analysis of super funds’ portfolio holdings disclosures shows that almost all of Australia’s biggest super funds are still investing in these climate-wrecking companies. What’s worse is that many funds’ exposure to Woodside and Santos is higher than these companies' weighting on the ASX 300 index! I acknowledge that you have started reducing investment in Woodside and Santos. However, you must now go further and exclude investment in all companies undermining global climate goals, across your entire portfolio. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[1] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[2] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[3] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[4] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [2] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [3] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [4] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to UniSuper
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to UniSuper*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear UniSuper, I was pleased to see UniSuper continuing to sell down shares in Santos and Woodside but I am concerned this trend is not guaranteed through policy. I am calling on UniSuper to tighten its fossil fuel exposure cap to ensure it won’t undo the fund’s good work in selling down climate wreckers Santos and Woodside. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosures shows UniSuper’s Balanced option sold down nearly 27% of its Santos shares across the period 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022. Although the Balanced option’s stake in Woodside has increased in real terms, Market Forces estimates the option has sold down nearly three-quarters of its Woodside shares, after taking into account shares received through the Woodside-BHP Petroleum merger.[1] While this is great progress, UniSuper must now continue this downward trend by fully divesting from all companies expanding fossil fuels and ensuring the fossil fuel cap does not allow exposure increase. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] I am calling on UniSuper to divest completely and permanently from Santos, Woodside and all companies expanding fossil fuels. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-october-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Vision Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Vision Super*
(You can edit this, too – your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Vision Super, I am writing to acknowledge Vision Super’s positive step of reducing investment exposure to Woodside and Santos, but ask the fund to go further and exclude any investment in companies undermining global climate goals by expanding the fossil fuel industry. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Vision Super’s Balanced Growth option has one of the lowest exposures to Woodside and Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] However, given these companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so, any investment in them is unacceptable. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “…an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to fully divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Of course I want to get updates about this campaign from Market Forces!
- Yes
Hidden
TOOK ACTION: Super – exposure to Woodside & Santos – blog post April 2022
- TOOK ACTION: Super – exposure to Woodside & Santos – blog post April 2022

Investment exposure to Woodside and Santos and proxy voting behaviour of Australia’s biggest super funds by assets under management

wdt_ID	Fund	Investment Option Profiled	Woodside investment exposure (% of Australian equities)	Santos investment exposure (% of Australian equities)	Voted against Woodside wind up resolution in 2021?	Voted against Santos wind up resolution in 2021?
1	AustralianSuper	Balanced	0.17	0.20	Against	Against
2	Commonwealth Super Corp	PSS Default	0.90	0.92	Not disclosed	Not disclosed
3	Australian Retirement Trust (formed after the merger between QSuper and Sunsuper)	Balanced Pool	1.11	0.98	Split*	Against*
4	Aware Super	High Growth	0.72	1.16	Abstain	Abstain
5	AMP	MySuper 1970's	1.39	1.32	Not disclosed	Not disclosed
6	MLC (owned by IOOF)	MySuper Growth	1.00	1.54	Against	Against
7	BT Financial Group	BT Panorama	0.81	0.45	Against	Against
8	UniSuper	Balanced	0.18	1.38	Against	Against
9	Colonial First State	FirstChoice Wholesale Growth	0.80	2.14	Split	Against
10	REST	Core Strategy	0.96	2.25	Against	Against

Holdings information as at 31 December 2021.

*Proxy voting information pertaining to Australian Retirement Trust reflects the combined voting behaviour of QSuper and Sunsuper, prior to the merger. QSuper voted against, and Sunsuper voted for, the Woodside ‘Capital Protection’ resolution in 2021, and both funds voted against the Santos ‘Capital Protection’ resolution in 2021.

Tell your super fund to ditch Woodside and Santos today

We have calculated and presented these funds’ investments in Woodside and Santos as a proportion of each fund’s total allocation to Australian listed equities (shares listed on the Australian stock market), as this allows for direct comparison between funds. Other data points, such as investment exposure as a proportion of the total fund, or dollar value of investments in these companies are incomparable because funds have different allocations to Australian listed equities and different amounts of money in the investment pool.

For more information on super funds’ investments in climate-wrecking oil and gas companies, check out our Woodside and Santos web pages.

Methodology

The scope of our analysis covers Australia’s largest 32 super funds by assets under management, according to APRA’s June 2021 fund-level superannuation statistics, Table 1 and Table 2. Where mergers between super funds have occurred since June 2021, the single merged entity is listed on the table (noting the previous fund name/s) and occupies only one position on the table, unless the merged funds remain as standalone brands with standalone policies. We identified:

Each fund’s investment exposure to Woodside Petroleum and Santos, as a proportion of its total allocation to Australian equities in its default (or largest, by AUM) investment option as at 31 December 2021, and;
How each fund voted on Market Forces-coordinated ‘Capital Protection’ shareholder proposals at the annual general meetings (AGMs) of Woodside and Santos in 2021.

Where a fund’s total allocation to Australian equities for 31 December 2021 was not disclosed or not apparent from its holdings disclosures, the option’s disclosed strategic asset allocation (or the most recent actual asset allocation, if available) was used to calculate the fund’s exposure to Woodside and Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities.

The information in the above table pertains to 24 of Australia’s largest 32 funds, for the following reasons:

QSuper and Sunsuper have recently merged to form Australian Retirement Trust;
HUB24 and Netwealth do not have investment options comparable to the rest of those captured in the study;
CommBank Group Super and Macquarie do not disclose total or strategic allocation to Australian equities, nor is this information apparent from its holdings disclosure. We therefore did not have enough information to analyse these funds’ investments in Woodside and Santos as a proportion of Australian listed equities, and;
IOOF, OnePath and StateWide are yet to disclose their full list of investment holdings.

Where a fund’s proxy voting disclosure reads ‘Split,’ this means that the fund has voted some of its shares in different ways on the relevant proposal, for example some shares for and some against, or some abstaining and some against. In the case of QSuper and Sunsuper, both funds voted differently on the Woodside ‘Capital Protection’ resolution prior to the merger (QSuper voted against, Sunsuper voted for).

Sources

Portfolio holdings disclosures for all funds are as at 31 December 2021, and were sourced from each fund’s website (see below). Proxy voting information was sourced from Proxy Insight (a subscription service), or from each fund’s own proxy voting disclosure. Each fund’s total allocation to Australian equities was calculated from portfolio holdings disclosure unless noted below.

Portfolio holdings disclosures and asset allocations

ACSRF
Active Super
AMP
Australian Retirement Trust
AustralianSuper
Aware Super
BT Financial Group
CareSuper (strategic asset allocation to Australian equities: 22%)
Catholic Super
Cbus (total asset allocation to Australian equities at 31 January 2022: 22.53%)
Colonial First State (total asset allocation to Australian equities at December 2021: 25.5%)
CommBank Group Super
Commonwealth Super Corp

Equipsuper (strategic asset allocation to Australian equities: 24%)
HESTA
Hostplus
LGIAsuper
Macquarie
Mercer (total asset allocation to Australian equities at December 2021: 36%)
Mine Super
MLC
NGS Super
Rest
Spirit Super
Telstra Super (strategic asset allocation to Australian equities: 22%)
UniSuper
Vision Super

How much is your super fund investing in climate-wrecking oil and gas companies Woodside and Santos?

Take action

All funds (excluding ethical funds and targeted emails)

Message to Active Super

Message to AMP

Message to Australian Retirement Trust (QSuper & Sunsuper)

Message to AustralianSuper

Message to Aware Super

Message to BT Financial Group

Message to Cbus

Message to Colonial First State

Message to Commonwealth Super Corp / PSS

Message to Equip Super

Message to HESTA

Message to Hostplus

Message to IOOF

Message to MLC

Message to NGS Super

Message to OnePath

Message to REST

Message to Suncorp Super

Message to UniSuper

Message to Vision Super

Investment exposure to Woodside and Santos and proxy voting behaviour of Australia’s biggest super funds by assets under management

Methodology

Sources

Portfolio holdings disclosures and asset allocations