Commonwealth Super Corp Military Super Balanced

Australian share investments

Commonwealth Super Corp discloses Military Super Balanced’s top 100 Australian and top 100 international shareholdings. 15% of CSS’s Australian share investments is in companies actively undermining the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, including BHP, Woodside, Santos, AGL and Origin Energy. Please note CSC’s latest holdings disclosure (at 31 December 2020) predates its coal exclusion policy, so shows investment in Whitehaven Coal that will have since been divested.

Terms and methodologies explained

TAKE ACTION

Known fossil fuel exclusions

Fossil fuel exclusion policy

Commonwealth Super Corp excludes investment in “undiversified companies that derive 70% or more of their revenue from thermal coal production/extraction.”

General fund information

Fund type: Public Sector

Assets under management: $224 billion

Members: 672,000

Date as at 30/06/2020
Reference: https://www.csc.gov.au/

Other funds by the same provider

Take action

Use the form below to tell your fund
to lift its game on climate action!

1Your details

2Your message

Super fund*
Name*
First Last
Email Address*
Postcode*
Phone number

Subject
(you can edit this)
Subject
(you can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. Super funds managing in excess of 30% of (non self-managed) super assets, have excluded investments in some fossil fuel companies, while some smaller funds exclude fossil fuels entirely. I ask that you move from laggard to leader on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to Australian Ethical*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
I am writing to firstly thank you for not investing any of my retirement savings in companies that are pursuing fossil fuel expansion and/or basing their business on a scenario that would doom the Paris Agreement to failure (see: marketforces.org.au/outofline). However, there are many companies within my portfolio that are yet to demonstrate their alignment with the Paris climate goals. I ask that you engage with these companies to ensure they do so as soon as possible. For years companies have been asked to disclose and manage their climate change risks. Yet in spite of increasing calls to action from regulators and investors, many companies have failed to disclose strategies that are consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Please respond within 14 days, detailing your plans to engage with companies to ensure their business plans are aligned with the Paris climate goals. Sincerely
Your message to Aware Super*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful Aware has taken initial steps by divesting from some thermal coal mining companies and setting portfolio emission reduction targets. I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to UniSuper*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful UniSuper has taken initial steps by divesting from some thermal coal mining companies and setting emission reduction goals. I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to AustralianSuper*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful AustralianSuper has taken an initial step by divesting from some thermal coal mining companies. I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to Cbus*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful Cbus has taken an initial step by setting portfolio emission reduction targets. I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to Christian Super*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful Christian Super has taken initial steps by divesting from some thermal coal mining, coal power, and extreme oil and gas companies. I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to Cruelty Free Super*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
I am writing to firstly thank you for not investing any of my retirement savings in companies that are pursuing fossil fuel expansion and/or basing their business on a scenario that would doom the Paris Agreement to failure (see: marketforces.org.au/outofline). However, there are many companies within my portfolio that are yet to demonstrate their alignment with the Paris climate goals. I ask that you engage with these companies to ensure they do so as soon as possible. For years companies have been asked to disclose and manage their climate change risks. Yet in spite of increasing calls to action from regulators and investors, many companies have failed to disclose strategies that are consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Please respond, detailing your plans to engage with companies to ensure their business plans are aligned with the Paris climate goals. Sincerely
Your message to CSC*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful CSC has taken an initial step by divesting from some thermal coal mining companies. I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to Future Super*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
I am writing to firstly thank you for not investing any of my retirement savings in companies that are pursuing fossil fuel expansion and/or basing their business on a scenario that would doom the Paris Agreement to failure (see: marketforces.org.au/outofline). However, there are many companies within my portfolio that are yet to demonstrate their alignment with the Paris climate goals. I ask that you engage with these companies to ensure they do so as soon as possible. For years companies have been asked to disclose and manage their climate change risks. Yet in spite of increasing calls to action from regulators and investors, many companies have failed to disclose strategies that are consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Please respond, detailing your plans to engage with companies to ensure their business plans are aligned with the Paris climate goals. Sincerely
Your message to Hesta*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful Hesta has taken initial steps by divesting from some thermal coal mining companies and setting portfolio emission reduction targets. I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to Local Government Super*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful Local Government Super has taken initial steps by divesting from some thermal coal mining and coal power companies. I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to NGS Super*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful NGS has taken initial steps by divesting from some thermal coal mining and coal power companies. I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to REST*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful Rest has taken some initial steps, but I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to SunSuper*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful Sunsuper has taken some initial steps, but I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Your message to Verve Super*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
I am writing to firstly thank you for not investing any of my retirement savings in companies that are pursuing fossil fuel expansion and/or basing their business on a scenario that would doom the Paris Agreement to failure (see: marketforces.org.au/outofline). However, there are many companies within my portfolio that are yet to demonstrate their alignment with the Paris climate goals. I ask that you engage with these companies to ensure they do so as soon as possible. For years companies have been asked to disclose and manage their climate change risks. Yet in spite of increasing calls to action from regulators and investors, many companies have failed to disclose strategies that are consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Please respond, detailing your plans to engage with companies to ensure their business plans are aligned with the Paris climate goals. Sincerely
Your message to Vision Super*
(you can personalise and amend this, your name will be automatically added at the end)
A new legal opinion released today confirms super funds are legally required to understand and manage the material financial risks posed by climate change.[1] Critically, the opinion states that where climate-related financial risks facing a particular investment are too great, funds should consider divestment or reallocation of funds to less risky options. It also states “Target [investment] exposures, such as portfolio wide net zero emissions reduction targets, will need to be determined having regard to any financial risk posed by climate change”. 23 of Australia’s 300 biggest companies, as well as many more internationally, are pursuing plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the expansion of the fossil fuel sector (see marketforces.org.au/outofline). These companies are driving global warming and the associated physical and transition risks that are expected to impact the entire economy. Multiple studies referenced in the new legal opinion have confirmed that failing to limit global warming in line with the Paris climate goals would have serious negative financial impacts across a fund’s portfolio. We know the rapid decarbonisation required to meet the Paris climate goals means fossil fuel industries must start declining immediately. Yet fossil fuel companies are spending billions of dollars to massively expand coal, oil and gas production, significantly increasing their own exposure to climate change transition risks, including stranded asset risk. With that in mind, I request the following information: 1. Have you read and understood the Market Forces Out of Line, Out of Time report? (marketforces.org.au/outofline) 2. How does the fund justify ongoing investment in any of the companies named in the report? In your answer, please refer to the requirements in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hutley SC memorandum. 3. Does the fund rely on investment managers to manage investments that are exposed to climate change risks? What steps does the fund take to ensure investment managers are giving the trustee information about climate change risks and addressing those risks whilst investing? 4. How does the fund’s investment strategy, risk appetite statement, investment selection process, stress testing and investment governance framework incorporate climate change risks? 5. How does the fund ensure that its accountants, actuaries and consultants provide advice that is consistent with the reality of the financial risks posed by climate change? 6. Does the fund understand that, as climate change gets worse, there will be increasingly negative financial impacts to members investments on a portfolio-wide basis? What steps is the fund taking to avoid a worsening climate? Please provide this information within one month. Evidence cited in the new opinion reveals that increased global warming will negatively impact member returns over time. The companies responsible for driving warming and expanding the fossil fuel industry will contribute to member losses and environmental damage. The investments are exposed to the structural risks of climate change and are likely to be too risky over time. I expect the fund to take these risks seriously and withdraw any investments from those companies. I am grateful Vision has taken initial steps by divesting from some thermal coal and extreme oil and gas companies. I ask that you go further on climate risk management and, in accordance with the new advice, exclude investing in companies expanding the coal, oil or gas sectors. Sincerely
Email Opt in
- I want updates about this campaign from Market Forces!

* These fields are required.

Climate voting record

Commonwealth Superannuation Corp only discloses an aggregated voting record, so we do not know how the fund voted on specific climate change-related resolutions.

Commonwealth Super Corp Military Super Balanced

Australian share investments

Known fossil fuel exclusions

Fossil fuel exclusion policy

General fund information

Take action

Climate voting record

Latest news about super

2021 HESTA Annual Member Meeting: The fund avoids climate scrutiny at all costs

Super funds undermining climate commitments

Super fund ‘engagement’ fails to stop Woodside and BHP pressing go on Scarborough carbon bomb

New legal opinion confirms super funds must manage climate risks