Home > Big super funds quietly selling down shares in Santos and Woodside

Big super funds quietly selling down shares in Santos and Woodside

18 October 2022

The latest round of mandatory super fund disclosures reveal that most of Australia’s biggest super funds are selling shares in climate wrecking oil and gas companies Santos and Woodside. Some funds, however, have significantly increased their stake in these companies, which are both pursuing new oil and gas projects that are incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

For the first time since super fund investment disclosures became mandatory, we can compare how many shares funds have either sold or bought in their default investment options. Our analysis shows that 11 out of the 14 super fund default investment options captured in our study owned less shares in Santos at 30 June 2022 than at 31 December 2021 (see Figure 1). AustralianSuper, UniSuper and HESTA have sold down a significant number of Santos shares in their default options, selling down their stakes by 41.3%, 26.8% and 20.5%, respectively.

Hostplus’ Balanced option, on the other hand, is the only one in our study to have significantly increased its stake in Santos, with a 16.1% jump in shares. Why is Hostplus using members’ retirement savings to buy up so many shares in this climate wrecker? Supporting Santos’ oil and gas expansion plans wildly contradicts the net zero by 2050 portfolio emissions reduction target Hostplus set earlier this year.

Take action

Tell your super fund to stop investing in Santos and Woodside 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

**Figure 1:** Relative change in super funds’ Santos shares, 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022

Eight out of 14 funds also appear to have sold shares in Woodside in their default options over the period from 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022, after taking into account the shares these funds (as BHP shareholders) would have received through Woodside’s merger with BHP’s petroleum business at the start of June.

Although entitled to a large number of Woodside shares as a BHP shareholder, UniSuper’s Balanced option only saw a slight increase in Woodside share ownership over the six month period. As such, we estimate this option sold down its Woodside position by nearly three-quarters, post-merger. HESTA’s Balanced Growth option appears to have sold more than one-fifth of its Woodside shares, while Cbus’ Growth (MySuper) option reduced its position by one-sixth.

Though there is still work to be done, this progress is great news for the more than 15,000 UniSuper members who have been demanding the fund divest from companies expanding the fossil fuel industry, including Santos and Woodside. HESTA members have been demanding their fund do the same thing, yet have mostly been met with staunch opposition from HESTA, which claims engagement with (rather than divestment from) these companies will bring them into line with the Paris climate goals. Yet engagement with the likes of Santos and Woodside has clearly failed to do this. Has HESTA finally realised this and started escalating its action at these companies? 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?

**Figure 2:** Actual change in Woodside shares in AustralianSuper and UniSuper’s default options, 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022 (including share entitlement from BHP merger based on 30 June BHP shareholdings)

AustralianSuper’s Balanced option, however, has increased its share ownership in Woodside by a massive 14 times – a jump that can only partly be explained by AustralianSuper’s existing shareholding in BHP (see Figure 2). This is despite being one of the few funds to have previously sold down a big stake in Woodside. 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.

Climate scientists have been telling us for years there is no room for new oil and gas fields to be developed if we are to limit global warming to 1.5°C, while independent analysis of Santos and Woodside’s new and planned projects has confirmed they are incompatible with that goal. Yet both companies are still recklessly pursuing oil and gas expansion plans that would doom the Paris climate goals to failure.

Santos’ Barossa project, for example, has been labelled by energy experts “…a CO2 emissions factory with an LNG by-product,” yet the company has recently sanctioned another new climate-wrecking oil field incompatible with the Paris climate goals. Independent analysis of Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto combined project has also concluded the project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,” but Woodside has recently confirmed its intention to continue pursuing the monstrous Browse offshore gas basin.

Has your super fund bought or sold shares in Santos and Woodside since December 2021? Check out our tables below to find out and take action.

Santos share ownership changes in the default investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds (by assets under management), December 2021 to June 2022

wdt_ID	Fund	Investment option	# Santos shares 31 December 2021	# Santos shares 30 June 2022	Relative difference	formula_1
1	AustralianSuper	Balanced	11,393,382	6,687,859	-41.3	41.30
2	Commonwealth Super Corp	PSS Default	7,845,919	7,595,870	-3.2	3.19
3	Australian Retirement Trust (formed after the merger between QSuper and Sunsuper)	Balanced Pool	18,203,035	17,409,763	-4.4	4.36
4	Aware Super	High Growth	24,724,863	26,053,271	5.4	-5.37
5	AMP	MySuper 1970's	2,945,243	2,909,068	-1.2	1.23

Woodside share ownership changes in the default investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds (by assets under management), December 2021 to June 2022

wdt_ID	Fund	Investment option	# Woodside shares 31 December 2021	Estimated Woodside share entitlement based on 30 June 2022 BHP holding	Implied Woodside shareholding post-BHP merger	# Woodside shares 30 June 2022	Estimated Woodside shares bought or sold	% change 30 June 2022 shareholding vs implied holding post-BHP merger
1	AustralianSuper	Balanced	2,920,141	18,444,402	21,364,543	42,769,762	21,405,219	100.2
2	Commonwealth Super Corp	PSS Default	2,217,451	2,398,074	4,615,525	4,620,991	5,466	0.1
3	Australian Retirement Trust (formed after the merger between QSuper and Sunsuper)	Balanced Pool	5,893,538	5,080,760	10,974,298	11,418,291	443,993	4.0
4	Aware Super	High Growth	4,405,219	4,766,192	9,171,411	8,865,685	-305,726	-3.3
5	AMP	MySuper 1970's	890,179	558,879	1,449,058	1,241,115	-207,943	-14.4

Take action: tell your super fund to divest from climate wreckers Santos and Woodside

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

Update: 20 October 2022

Market Forces’ analysis found Hostplus’ Balanced investment option had increased its shareholding in Santos by 16.1% between 31 December 2021 and 30 June 2022. Hostplus has responded to the analysis, claiming its ‘increased stake in SANTOS came about due to the merger between HOSTPLUS and Statewide Super.’

Statewide Super did not disclose its full 31 December 2021 portfolio holdings prior to its merger with Hostplus, so Market Forces does not have the publicly-available data to scrutinise Hostplus’ claim. We have conducted our analysis based on super funds’ own published holdings disclosures. Information on Statewide Super’s website indicated the fund invested in Santos, which may explain some increase in Santos shares held by Hostplus post-merger.

Our analysis also found Hostplus’ Balanced option’s investment exposure to Santos (as a proportion of Australian listed equities) increased from 2.21% to 2.96% across the period 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022.

Further to this, our April 2022 analysis found Hostplus’ balanced option had the second highest exposure to Santos at 31 December 2021 of the options in the study.

If Hostplus is ‘fully committed’ to transitioning its investment portfolio to net zero emissions by 2050 through engagement with portfolio companies, why did the fund vote against shareholder resolutions put to Woodside and Santos this year, which sought to bring their business plans into line with the goal of net zero by 2050?

Hostplus is still investing members’ retirement savings in thermal coal miners Whitehaven and New Hope, when many big super funds are already divesting. The fossil fuel expansion plans of these companies are completely out of line with the goal of net zero by 2050.

More information

Woodside and BHP Petroleum merger

Woodside took over BHP’s petroleum business on 1 June 2022. The deal saw eligible BHP shareholders—including almost all Australian super funds—issued one Woodside share for every 5.534 BHP shares they held on 26 May 2022.

Methodology

The scope of our analysis covers the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s largest 15 super funds by assets under management (AUM), 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. The information in the above tables pertains to 14 funds, because QSuper and Sunsuper merged in February 2022 to form Australian Retirement Trust.

We identified the total number of shares each option had invested in Santos at 31 December 2021 and 30 June 2022, using the difference to calculate the relative change in share ownership.

We identified the total number of shares each option had invested in Woodside at 31 December 2021 and 30 June 2022, as well as the total number of shares each option had invested in BHP at the same dates. Using the BHP shareholding figure for each option at 30 June 2022, we calculated the number of shares each fund would have been entitled to if they held that same number of shares on 26 May 2022, that being one Woodside share for every 5.534 BHP shares. On this assumption, we were then able to calculate the theoretical share ownership had the fund only held onto its newly distributed shares, and compare that with the actual Woodside shareholding at 30 June 2022. This allows for an estimate of whether a fund has sold down newly distributed shares or increased its position in its own right.

BT Financial Group’s BT Panorama investment option has ‘Woodside Energy Group Ltd’ categorised under its ‘listed infrastructure’ asset class in its 30 June 2022 portfolio holdings disclosure. We have assumed this is in fact a listed equity asset as it is in the other funds analysed here.

Sources

Portfolio holdings disclosures for funds as at 30 June 2022 were sourced from each fund’s website (see below). The 31 December 2021 portfolio holdings disclosures were also sourced from each fund’s website, between March and April this year.

Portfolio holdings disclosures

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.

Big super funds quietly selling down shares in Santos and Woodside

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