UniSuper Balanced

This investment option’s exposure to the Climate Wreckers Index:

Holdings disclosure date	Exposure to Climate Wreckers Index (% listed equities)
31 December 2021	8.33%

The Climate Wreckers Index is made up of the 180 publicly-listed companies from all over the world with the biggest plans to expand the scale of the fossil fuel industry. Specifically, the list includes:

The top 60 oil and gas producers by expansion plans
The top 60 coal miners by expansion plans and coal reserves
The top 30 companies by new gas power plant development plans
The top 30 companies by new coal power plant development plans

Together, these companies are planning new coal, oil and gas production and power generation projects that could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions! Take action and tell your fund to ditch all companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry.

View the methodology for calculating exposure to the Climate Wreckers Index here.

Portfolio holdings disclosures sourced from:
https://www.unisuper.com.au/

Take action

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

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)
A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Recent analysis by Market Forces (see: marketforces.org.au/climatewreckersindex) shows the average large Australian super fund’s default option has over 6% of its members’ share investments in these climate wrecking companies. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. More than half of Australian super funds (by assets under management) have now divested from thermal coal miners Whitehaven and New Hope in their active holdings. Several funds, including AustralianSuper, UniSuper and Vision Super, have also seen the writing on the wall for the oil and gas industry and started divesting from the likes of Woodside and Santos. Most recently, NGS Super became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions. I therefore demand that the fund takes immediate action to end its investments in all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, publicly divesting current holdings and implementing a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. Sincerely,
Note: LGIASuper is now Brighter Super. Your email will be directed to Brighter Super.
Hidden
Message to ACSRF
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to ACSRF*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
To ACSRF, A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I was disappointed to see Market Forces’ analysis (see: marketforces.org.au/climatewreckersindex) showing ACSRF’s Balanced option had over 7.5% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry, making this option the fifth most exposed to the climate wreckers captured in the analysis (of the investment options studied). This is nothing short of appalling. However, I understand ACSRF will be merging with UniSuper by the end of 2022, which provides our fund with a crucial opportunity to move from climate laggard to leader. UniSuper has started divesting from oil and gas producers (such as Woodside Energy) in its active holdings, but must go further and exclude all companies expanding fossil fuels across the whole fund. ACSRF must therefore demand this action from UniSuper, on behalf of the tens of thousands of ACSRF members who will be joining the fund. Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. More than half of Australian super funds (by assets under management) have now divested from thermal coal miners Whitehaven and New Hope in their active holdings. Several funds have also seen the writing on the wall for the oil and gas industry and started divesting from the likes of Woodside and Santos. Most recently, NGS Super became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. ACSRF is fast becoming a climate laggard. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions as NGS through negotiations with UniSuper. I therefore urge ACSRF to demand stronger climate action from UniSuper, on behalf of myself and the tens of thousands of other ACSRF members who will be joining the combined fund. This is an opportunity to lock in a decent climate policy and ensure a safe climate future for ACSRF members. Make it clear to UniSuper that climate leaders don’t invest in climate wreckers. Sincerely,
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)
To Active Super, A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I was disappointed to see Market Forces’ analysis showing Active Super’s High Growth option had over 6% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. However, I also note that the Active Super board approved some restrictions in oil and gas companies in early 2022. When will Active Super publicly disclose this list? The fund must not only be transparent with its members about which companies it has divested from (and by how much), but go further and rule out all investment in the likes of Woodside, Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. I also understand Active Super is exploring a merger with Vision Super, which currently excludes oil and gas producers from its active holdings. If both funds agree to this merger, Active Super needs to ensure the combined fund implements a comprehensive climate policy that excludes all companies expanding fossil fuels. Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. Several super funds have seen the writing on the wall for the oil and gas industry and started divesting from the likes of Woodside and Santos. Most recently, NGS Super became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. Active Super is fast becoming a climate laggard. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions as NGS. I therefore demand that Active Super takes immediate action to end its investments in all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, publicly divesting current holdings and implementing a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Australian Retirement Trust (ART)
Note: QSuper, Sunsuper, and APSS are now part of Australian Retirement Trust. Your email will be directed to Australian Retirement Trust.
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Australian Retirement Trust*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
To Australian Retirement Trust (ART), A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I was disappointed to see Market Forces’ analysis showing ART’s Lifecycle Balanced Pool option had over 6.2% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. However, I am aware that this option didn’t appear to have any investment exposure to thermal coal miners Whitehaven and New Hope at 31 December 2021. Has ART fully divested from thermal coal companies? If so, when will we see this decision anchored in policy? ART must now go further and rule out investment in the likes of Woodside, Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. Several super funds have seen the writing on the wall for the oil and gas industry and started divesting from the likes of Woodside and Santos. Most recently, NGS Super became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. ART is fast becoming a climate laggard. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions as NGS. I therefore demand that ART takes immediate action to end its investments in all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, publicly divesting current holdings and implementing a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to AustralianSuper
Note: LUCRF is now part of AustralianSuper. Your email will be directed 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)
To AustralianSuper, A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I was disappointed to see Market Forces’ analysis showing AustralianSuper’s Balanced option had over 4.4% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry, despite the fact that the fund has already significantly reduced investment in climate wreckers Woodside and Santos. However, Woodside’s recent acquisition of BHP’s petroleum business likely significantly increases AustralianSuper’s investment exposure to this climate wrecker. Has AustralianSuper sold the shares it acquired as a result of this merger? If not, why not? I will be disgusted if I discover AustralianSuper’s exposure to Woodside has increased at the next portfolio holdings disclosure reporting deadline. AustralianSuper must implement a policy to rule out investments in the likes of Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. It’s good to see that AustralianSuper has seen the writing on the wall for the oil and gas industry and started to divest from the likes of Woodside and Santos. However, NGS Super recently became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. AustralianSuper is therefore fast becoming a climate laggard. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions as NGS, which is a much smaller fund than ours. I therefore demand that AustralianSuper takes immediate action to end its investments in all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, publicly divesting current holdings and implementing a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Australian Ethical
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Australian Ethical*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
To Australian Ethical, I am glad to be a member of a fund that does not invest in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry during a time when global emissions need to be declining immediately and steeply. Only a relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Recent analysis by Market Forces (see: marketforces.org.au/climatewreckersindex) shows the average large Australian super fund’s default option has over 6% of its members’ share investments in these climate wrecking companies. Our fund has something to be proud of: our exposure to these climate wreckers is 0% (in the investment option profiled by Market Forces). However, there is always more work to be done. Clearly, companies that are still expanding fossil fuels either cannot or will not align their business strategies with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, which is why our fund has made the active decision to exclude them from our portfolio. Yet there are still companies within our portfolio that need a nudge in the right direction to fully align their business plans with the Paris climate goals. I therefore urge the fund to continue to engage with its portfolio companies and investment managers and keep driving the positive change we need to see. Divestment from companies that either cannot or will not align with global climate goals is the responsible thing to do. However, where a company shows a serious commitment to aligning its strategy with the Paris Agreement, there is certainly a reason to push for change through investor stewardship. 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)
To Aware Super, A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I note Market Forces’ analysis (see: marketforces.org.au/climatewreckersindex) showing Aware Super’s High Growth option had the lowest exposure (3.5%) in its listed equities investments to companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry, of the options in the study. However, Aware must go further and implement a policy to rule out investment in the likes of Woodside, Santos, and all other companies expanding the fossil fuel industry. Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. I understand Aware Super has started to reduce investment exposure to the likes of Woodside and Santos through its low carbon benchmarking approach. However, this approach is not good enough. NGS Super recently became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. Aware Super is fast becoming a climate laggard. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions as NGS, which is a much smaller fund than ours. I therefore demand that Aware Super take immediate action to end its investments in all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, publicly divesting current holdings and implementing a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Cbus
Note: Media Super is now part of Cbus. Your email will be directed 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)
To Cbus, A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I was disappointed to see Market Forces’ analysis showing Cbus’ Growth (MySuper) option had over 4.7% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry, despite the fact that the fund has a ‘stranded asset framework’ in place that should reduce investment exposure to climate-wrecking companies. Why doesn’t Cbus disclose the specific impact of its stranded asset framework on its investment in companies with a high climate and/or asset stranding risk? And how does the framework allow Cbus to remain invested in companies like Woodside and Santos, which are actively undermining climate action and exacerbating stranded asset risk by pursuing new oil and gas projects? Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. More than half of Australian super funds (by assets under management) have now divested from thermal coal miners Whitehaven and New Hope in their active holdings. Several super funds have also seen the writing on the wall for the oil and gas industry and started divesting from the likes of Woodside and Santos. Most recently, NGS Super became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. Cbus is fast becoming a climate laggard. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions as NGS. I therefore demand that Cbus takes immediate action to end its investments in all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, publicly divesting current holdings and implementing a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. 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)
To Commonwealth Super Corp (CSC), A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I was disappointed to see Market Forces’ analysis (see: marketforces.org.au/climatewreckersindex) showing CSC’s PSS Default option had over 7.1% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. This is nothing short of appalling. When will CSC move from climate laggard to climate leader and divest from companies expanding fossil fuels? Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. Several super funds have seen the writing on the wall for the oil and gas industry and started divesting from the likes of Woodside and Santos. Most recently, NGS Super became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. CSC is lagging behind most of the industry on climate action. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions as NGS. I therefore demand that CSC takes immediate action to end its investments in all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, publicly divesting current holdings and implementing a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Cruelty Free Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Cruelty Free Super*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
To Cruelty Free Super, I am glad to be a member of a fund that does not invest in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry during a time when global emissions need to be declining immediately and steeply. Only a relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Recent analysis by Market Forces (see: marketforces.org.au/climatewreckersindex) shows the average large Australian super fund’s default option has over 6% of its members’ share investments in these climate wrecking companies. Our fund has something to be proud of: our exposure to these climate wreckers is 0% (in the investment option profiled by Market Forces). However, there is always more work to be done. Clearly, companies that are still expanding fossil fuels either cannot or will not align their business strategies with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, which is why our fund has made the active decision to exclude them from our portfolio. Yet there are still companies within our portfolio that need a nudge in the right direction to fully align their business plans with the Paris climate goals. I therefore urge the fund to continue to engage with its portfolio companies and investment managers and keep driving the positive change we need to see. Divestment from companies that either cannot or will not align with global climate goals is the responsible thing to do. However, where a company shows a serious commitment to aligning its strategy with the Paris Agreement, there is certainly a reason to push for change through investor stewardship. Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Future Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Future Super*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
To Future Super, I am glad to be a member of a fund that does not invest in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry during a time when global emissions need to be declining immediately and steeply. Only a relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Recent analysis by Market Forces (see: marketforces.org.au/climatewreckersindex) shows the average large Australian super fund’s default option has over 6% of its members’ share investments in these climate wrecking companies. Our fund has something to be proud of: our exposure to these climate wreckers is 0% (in the investment option profiled by Market Forces). However, there is always more work to be done. Clearly, companies that are still expanding fossil fuels either cannot or will not align their business strategies with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, which is why our fund has made the active decision to exclude them from our portfolio. Yet there are still companies within our portfolio that need a nudge in the right direction to fully align their business plans with the Paris climate goals. I therefore urge the fund to continue to engage with its portfolio companies and investment managers and keep driving the positive change we need to see. Divestment from companies that either cannot or will not align with global climate goals is the responsible thing to do. However, where a company shows a serious commitment to aligning its strategy with the Paris Agreement, there is certainly a reason to push for change through investor stewardship. 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)
To HESTA, A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I was disappointed to see Market Forces’ analysis showing HESTA’s Balanced Growth option had over 5.8% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. For a fund that claims to be an industry leader on climate action, this is appalling. Remaining invested in the likes of Woodside and Santos—companies which have failed to produce Paris-aligned transition plans, despite years of investor engagement—is to be complicit in their climate-wrecking business plans. Climate leaders don’t invest in climate wreckers. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something ASIC is starting to clamp down on. Several super funds have seen the writing on the wall for the oil and gas industry and started divesting from the likes of Woodside and Santos. Most recently, NGS Super became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. Far from being a climate leader, HESTA is fast becoming a climate laggard. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions as NGS. I therefore demand that HESTA takes immediate action to end its investments in Woodside, Santos, and all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, publicly divesting current holdings and implementing a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Hostplus
Note: Statewide Super is now part of Hostplus. Your email will be directed 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)
To Hostplus, A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I was disappointed to see Market Forces’ analysis showing Hostplus’ Balanced option had over 5.6% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. This is nothing short of appalling. How can Hostplus seriously claim to support the goal of net zero by 2050 when it invests members’ retirement savings in the likes of Whitehaven, New Hope, Woodside and Santos? Hostplus’ net zero claims are just empty words without full divestment from the companies undermining that goal by recklessly expanding the fossil fuel industry. I was also disappointed to see Hostplus’ comments in the media in July about the fund maintaining full exposure to the fossil fuel sector.[1] Hostplus’ membership base is typically younger than most industry funds, and the decisions that the fund makes today may significantly impact the quality of life its members enjoy in the future. Super funds must invest in a way that provides a safe future for their members to retire into, and this involves understanding and mitigating climate risk. Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. More than half of Australian super funds (by assets under management) have now divested from thermal coal miners Whitehaven and New Hope in their active holdings. Several funds have also seen the writing on the wall for the oil and gas industry and started divesting from the likes of Woodside and Santos. Most recently, NGS Super became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. Hostplus is lagging behind most of the industry on climate action. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions as NGS. I therefore demand that Hostplus takes immediate action to end its investments in all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, publicly divesting current holdings and implementing a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. [1] https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/revealed-only-three-super-funds-made-money-this-year-20220715-p5b1v6 Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to NGS Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to NGS Super*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
To NGS Super, I was thrilled to see the fund’s recent policy update, as NGS has become the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers and fully divest from the likes of Woodside and Santos. Well done showing climate leadership! However, we still have work to do. One of the biggest threats to our chances of a stable climate future is the massive pipeline of proposed gas power projects in Asia, which would lock in decades of emissions, delay the transition to renewable energy sources, and in many cases devastate local communities and ecosystems. A number of companies heavily involved in these gas power expansion plans were identified in NGS’ portfolio holdings disclosures, and are not captured by the fund’s fossil fuel exclusions. I urge NGS to divest from the climate-wrecking companies driving expansion of the gas power sector. Despite the positive impact your new exclusion policy will have, investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is inconsistent with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement. Although I was disappointed to see that NGS’ Diversified MySuper option had over 5.5% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry as at 31 December 2021, I will be looking forward to seeing the impact the fund’s new policy has on this figure at the next disclosure period. Further to this, I will be looking forward to seeing what action NGS takes next to end its investments in all companies pursuing new and expanded fossil fuel projects. The fund has taken a huge step forward in publicly divesting from oil and gas producers: now let’s extend that to exclude all companies expanding fossil fuels for good. 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)
To Rest, A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I was disappointed to see Market Forces’ analysis showing Rest’s Core Strategy option had close to 6% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. In particular, the option had significant exposure to Santos (as at 31 December). Several of the fund’s peers have significantly reduced exposure to Santos. When will Rest start living up to its climate claims and divest from companies expanding the fossil fuel industry? Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. Several super funds have also seen the writing on the wall for the oil and gas industry and started divesting from the likes of Woodside and Santos. Most recently, NGS Super became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. Rest is fast becoming a climate laggard. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions as NGS. I therefore demand that Rest takes immediate action to end its investments in all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, publicly divesting current holdings and implementing a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Spirit Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Spirit Super*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
To Spirit Super, A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I was disappointed to see Market Forces’ analysis showing Spirit Super’s Balanced (MySuper) option had over 5.7% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. However, it is pleasing to see the fund’s stated goals of cutting both attributable CO2 emissions and attributable fossil fuel reserves 50% by 2030. Will Spirit Super be disclosing to members the specific impact of this policy on its portfolio, as a way of reporting on progress towards the fund’s goals? Furthermore, has Spirit Super already started divesting from companies with large fossil fuel reserves? If so, which companies has the fund started divesting from? Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. More than half of Australian super funds (by assets under management) have now divested from thermal coal miners Whitehaven and New Hope in their active holdings. Several funds, including AustralianSuper, UniSuper and Vision Super, have also seen the writing on the wall for the oil and gas industry and started divesting from the likes of Woodside and Santos. Most recently, NGS Super became the very first industry fund to implement an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, like Woodside and Santos, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. Spirit Super is lagging behind most of the industry on climate action. There are absolutely no excuses left for our fund not to implement the same (or better) climate ambitions and actions as NGS. I therefore demand that Spirit Super takes immediate action to end its investments in all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects, publicly divesting current holdings and implementing a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. 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)
To UniSuper, I recognise UniSuper has taken steps to decrease exposure to oil and gas companies. However, the fund’s last portfolio holdings disclosure revealed it retains significant investment exposure to Santos, a company with rampant oil and gas expansion plans that threaten our chances of a stable climate future, as well as local environments and cultural heritage. This investment Santos is the clearest example of where UniSuper must make immediate improvements to its climate approach. UniSuper’s earlier action on climate has also now been outshone by industry super fund NGS Super. NGS has become the first industry fund to fully divest from oil and gas companies including Santos and Woodside. There is no excuse for UniSuper not to raise ambition and at least match NGS’ climate ambitions. In fact, UniSuper should position itself as a true climate leader by pulling our retirement savings out of all companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. This would help attract and retain members who want to see strong action on climate change from their super fund. The recent federal election showed the widespread community support for action on climate change. From the floods in Lismore to wildfires in Europe, the impacts of climate change are already being felt at home and around the world. I want my super fund to invest my retirement savings in a way that protects my future, not in companies undermining that future by pursuing new fossil fuel projects. I am calling on UniSuper to publicly divest from all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects and implement a clear policy to exclude any of these investments in the future. To demonstrate immediate progress, the fund must divest its holdings in Santos. Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Verve Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Verve Super*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
To Verve Super, I am glad to be a member of a fund that does not invest in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry during a time when global emissions need to be declining immediately and steeply. Only a relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Recent analysis by Market Forces (see: marketforces.org.au/climatewreckersindex) shows the average large Australian super fund’s default option has over 6% of its members’ share investments in these climate wrecking companies. Our fund has something to be proud of: our exposure to these climate wreckers is 0% (in the investment option profiled by Market Forces). However, there is always more work to be done. Clearly, companies that are still expanding fossil fuels either cannot or will not align their business strategies with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, which is why our fund has made the active decision to exclude them from our portfolio. Yet there are still companies within our portfolio that need a nudge in the right direction to fully align their business plans with the Paris climate goals. I therefore urge the fund to continue to engage with its portfolio companies and investment managers and keep driving the positive change we need to see. Divestment from companies that either cannot or will not align with global climate goals is the responsible thing to do. However, where a company shows a serious commitment to aligning its strategy with the Paris Agreement, there is certainly a reason to push for change through investor stewardship. 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)
To Vision Super, A relatively small number of companies globally are responsible for the lion’s share of investment in new fossil fuel production and generation projects. Despite being small in number, these companies’ fossil fuel expansion plans alone could add the equivalent of almost 200 years of Australia’s national annual emissions. Continued investment in any company pursuing new or expanded fossil fuel projects is indefensible. I cannot stand for my super fund to be invested in any such companies. I note Market Forces’ analysis (see: marketforces.org.au/climatewreckersindex) showed Vision Super’s Balanced Growth option had one of the lowest exposures to climate wrecking companies of the options captured in the study, with just over 4.2% of its listed equity investments in companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. However, Vision Super’s Sustainable Balanced option is more exposed to these climate wreckers than its Balanced Growth option, with more than 4.7% of its listed equities invested in climate wrecking companies! Any investment in these companies is too much, which is why Vision Super needs to implement a fund-wide policy that rules out all investment in all companies expanding fossil fuels, including passive investments. Years of investors claiming to change companies and bring about climate action through engagement has clearly failed to stop these companies pursuing new fossil fuel projects and business strategies incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Even after five years of the world’s largest investor engagement initiative, Climate Action 100+, none of its 166 target companies have fully aligned their capital expenditures with the Paris climate goals. Claiming that remaining invested in companies expanding fossil fuels is leading to better climate outcomes is akin to greenwashing, something that ASIC is starting to clamp down harder on. I recognise Vision Super has a more impactful oil and gas policy than most super funds. However, NGS Super has recently outshone Vision in this regard, becoming the very first industry fund to fully divest from the likes of Woodside and Santos by implementing an exclusion policy on pure play oil and gas producers, in an important step towards the fund’s goal of achieving a carbon neutral investment portfolio by 2030. Vision Super should not only match NGS’ action, but become a true climate leader by pulling our retirement savings out of all companies pursuing new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects. I ask the fund to publicly divest current holdings in these companies and implement a clear policy to exclude any such investment in the future. Sincerely,
Of course I want to get updates about this campaign from Market Forces!
- Yes
Hidden
TOOK ACTION: Super funds table
- TOOK ACTION: Super funds table

* These fields are required.

Climate voting record

UniSuper discloses its proxy voting decisions for all Australian companies, and its top 100 international holdings, every 6 months. The fund supported 28% of the climate-related shareholder resolutions it has disclosed from 2017 to 2020, although none of those votes in favour have been cast at Australian companies.

UniSuper Balanced

Take action

All funds (excluding ethical funds and targeted emails)

Message to ACSRF

Message to Active Super

Message to Australian Retirement Trust (ART)

Message to AustralianSuper

Message to Australian Ethical

Message to Aware Super

Message to Cbus

Message to Commonwealth Super Corp / PSS

Message to Cruelty Free Super

Message to Future Super

Message to HESTA

Message to Hostplus

Message to NGS Super

Message to REST

Message to Spirit Super

Message to UniSuper

Message to Verve Super

Message to Vision Super

Climate voting record

Fund information

Latest news about super

HESTA asks the impossible of oil and gas producers Woodside, Santos and Origin, rather than divesting

HESTA’s investments in Santos and Woodside may be a breach of the law

Is your super fund’s ‘sustainable’ option invested in companies expanding the fossil fuel industry?

Super funds ‘sustainable’ options invest in fossil fuel expansion