Ethical investing, shaping the future
In brief
With over $4 trillion in assets, superannuation in Australia is a powerful force shaping the economy and the future we live in. Whether it delivers outcomes people expect depends on the quality of ethical judgement behind each investment decision. This page uses recent portfolio examples to show how Australian Ethical’s decisions are applied.
For 40 years, we’ve been investing in line with our Ethical Charter, directing capital toward assets that support people, the planet and animals. And away from those that undermine them. We don’t invest in everything. We’re selective by design – so each investment decision gets the attention it deserves.
Our Ethical Criteria also helps us balance between the positive and negative effects of the assets we invest in. Our ethics team assess the company’s positive and negative impacts as ‘MILD’ or ‘STRONG’ and their classification depends on the type of impact and the nature and extent of the company’s involvement with the impact.
To be considered for investment, a company is required to have positive impacts which are not outweighed by stronger negative impacts, focusing on what we assess as the company’s strongest positive and strongest negative.
Meta owns several social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Threads.
Meta
The recent Mindful Investing report identifies Meta as a company of concern as it considers they present a public safety risk including mental health impact, misinformation, harmful content and data privacy.
Social media platforms play a central role in modern communication and economic life. We assess these platforms individually rather than excluding the sector outright.
In assessing Meta, we considered the scale of risks alongside evidence of harm reduction measures and accountability, including privacy controls, automated content moderation, tools to reduce misuse and an independent Oversight Board that can overturn Meta’s decisions.
These measures do not eliminate harm, but they do demonstrate responsibility. We exclude companies on ethical grounds we see evidence of systemic disregard for users, human rights or regulation. Based on our assessment, Meta does not currently meet that threshold, however it does remain under close and regular review.
IBM
Similarly, Mindful Investing considers IBM to be complicit in human rights violations through its provision of IT services to the Israeli government.
Many global technology companies provide services to governments. Most technologies are dual-luse, with both legitimate civilian applications and potential for misuse.
Our assessment of IBM focused on whether the technology was generic or designed to facilitate harm, how integral it was to violations, and whether legitimate civilian benefits exist. We did not find evidence that IBM’s products were customised to facilitate human rights infringements.
UBS
UBS is also considered by Mindful Investing as being a company of concern as it inherited issues through its acquisition of Credit Suisse.
We do not automatically exclude companies because they acquire poorly governed businesses. In some cases, the acquirer is best placed to address failures and strengthen oversight. Our assessment distinguishes between historic misconduct that is being addressed and ongoing systemic disregard. At this stage, UBS falls into the former category and remains under review.
SGS operates a network of over 2,500 laboratories and business facilities across 115 countries.
SGS
Mindful Investing identified SGS SA as a concern. Following further ethical review, we divested from SGS SA in March 2026.
Our decision was based on a breach of our Ethical Criteria relating to animal testing. Once that determination was made, we proceeded to sell the investment in line with a prudent investment process. This is how our approach is meant to work: reassess, decide and act.
How we assess and review investments
Of course, things change. Companies we deem as being positive on balance, may make a few decisions that tip that balance toward negative. That's why we conduct regular reviews of the businesses in which we invest. Where issues are identified, we may engage with a company to seek improvement. If an investment no longer meets our Ethical Criteria, we may divest.
The ethical decision to divest is made independently of practical considerations. Factors such as liquidity and market impact affect how a sale is executed, not whether it occurs.
Our assessments are revisited as new information emerges and company behaviour changes. Portfolio holdings can change over time as a result.
We conduct regular reviews of the businesses in which we invest. Where issues are identified, we may engage with a company to seek improvement. If an investment no longer meets our Ethical Criteria, we may divest.
Radical transparency at work
We publish our Ethical Criteria. We disclose our holdings. We explain our decisions – especially when they’re hard.
Our approach is over 40 years old. It’s proven. If you want your investments to be ethical by design, not just by name then you’re in the right place.
Invest. Altogether. Better.
If this matters to you, you’re not alone. Join the super fund with the lowest total exposure across all six areas of concern – and invest for the world you want to see. Switching your super takes less than five minutes.