We are committed to taking action to help halt and reverse nature loss including by addressing deforestation. We recognise deforestation is a systemic risk contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss. We also recognise that deforestation causes immense suffering, both to people, particularly indigenous peoples, and to the other sentient beings with which we share this planet.

As signatories to the Financial Sector Commitment Letter on Eliminating Commodity-Driven Deforestation and to the Finance for Biodiversity Pledge, we have made commitments to seek to better understand our exposure to deforestation, deepen our company engagements on this issue, and to set and disclose meaningful targets and our progress towards them.

Our direct exposure to the key drivers of deforestation globally is limited because of our exclusions for cattle production (see agriculture), palm oil, and native or old growth forest logging. For production of other food commodities, we have exclusions based on environmental performance standards (see more information here.

We may have direct exposure to deforestation through our investment in property companies undertaking greenfield urban development, and certainly have indirect exposure to deforestation through our holdings in supermarkets, other retailers, and financial institutions. We already engage some of these companies on deforestation and intend to deepen and broaden those engagements over the next few years, individually and in collaboration with others.

We are part of the following collaborative investor initiatives that are related to deforestation:

• FAIRR, through which we engage Coles and Woolworths about their exposure to deforestation and scope 3 emissions in their livestock supply chains
• The UNPRI sustainable commodities practitioners’ group
• RIAA Nature Working Group (we initiated and co-lead the corporate engagement sub-group)
• Ceres Food Emissions 50 initiative

You can keep up to date on our engagement activities here.

We're taking serious action to limit global warming.

We avoid climate unfriendly sectors like fossil fuels and target investment in climate friendly sectors. We're even going further to decarbonise our entire investment portfolio. We advocate for business action and better climate policy.

We're reducing and offsetting our own operational emissions. And we’ve won global awards for transparency about our alignment with our climate goals.

As warming and the urgency for action has continued to grow, so has our climate ambition and action, including:

• A net zero by 2040 target for our private sector investments

• A 2030 target to scale up our already high investment in climate solutions by 500%

• Raising our climate expectations and greenwash-scrutiny for critical companies under our ethical investment criteria

• Growing focus on important and harder-to-transition industries like building materials

• Advocacy for comprehensive Commonwealth climate legislation for a fair and efficient economic transition to reduce climate risk and unlock climate opportunity

Further reading

• Climate: The world's biggest social and economic risk

• Our latest TCFD report

• We must stay below 1.5°C of warming

• Beyond fossil fuel free

We invest in renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and sustainable hydro), as well as energy efficiency and battery storage.

These technologies are essential to limit global warming. Not only are they more sustainable than fossil-fuel energy production, they also are job creators and can help alleviate poverty with off-grid and future-proof energy supply.

We invest in companies whose products and services reduce energy demand, such as LED lights, insulation, recycling and smart energy management technology. The efficient use of energy is important because it reduces energy waste: an avoided watt needs no resource at all to be produced.

We take a selective approach to biofuels. Some can be produced sustainably and have the potential to extract carbon from the atmosphere when used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage (CCS). We also expect biofuels to help decarbonise air travel. We avoid unsustainable biofuel production, taking into account factors like biodiversity impacts, pollutants from combustion, impact on food production, and how the fuel is used.

Here's further information on our approach to nuclear power.

Our community grants program also provides funds for renewable energy projects in the community. Our grants have supported a solar system at a wildlife rescue centre in Victoria and a technician in East Timor repairing solar panels.

We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances is available here.

Further reading

• We must stay below 1.5°C of warming

• Beyond fossil fuel free

Business has a fundamental obligation to respect human rights. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (also known as the 'Ruggie principles') make it clear that companies must avoid causing or contributing to breaches of human rights through their own activities and seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts they are directly linked to by their business relationships.

Under our Human Rights Framework we avoid companies that:

• exploit vulnerable workers
• fail to follow credible processes to safeguard principles of free, prior and informed consent of the traditional owners or inhabitants
• knowingly provide products or services to a third-party that supports that party’s abuse of human rights
• act against human rights defenders
• lobby against human rights protections
• fail to respond to an identified human rights breach or
• fail to take appropriate steps to guard against the risk of human rights breaches in their operations and supply chains

We don't invest in operators of offshore detention centres. We have chosen not to invest in several clothing and electronics companies because of human rights concerns. We do not automatically avoid companies operating in countries that have a poor human rights record. We look at the way the company does business to assess whether they are making a positive contribution to the welfare of ordinary citizens of the country or whether they are supporting or complicit in human rights abuses.

On the positive side, there are companies that contribute to human dignity and education and the alleviation of poverty. One of the things that attracted us to the company Interface was its use of discarded fishing nets in developing countries to make modular carpets. As well as reducing waste, this provided financial opportunities to some of the poorest people in the world.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. For example, where a company makes a mistake, we'll consider if the company has acted to fix the mistake and stop it happening again before we exclude.

See case study

  

Further reading

A strong commitment to human rights

We exclude all fossil fuel company investments.

This means we exclude all companies whose main business is fossil fuels, as well as diversified companies that earn some fossil fuel revenue and aren't creating positive impact with their other activities.

We may invest in a diversified company which is having a positive impact in other ways such as producing renewable energy, provided its fossil fuel revenue is below our thresholds. For example, we assess Contact Energy to be a climate friendly investment, with about 80% of their electricity production coming from renewables in 2020. They earn some revenue from gas, but we think they are worth supporting as they continue to invest in renewables and help us get to 100% clean energy.

More information about our revenue tolerances is available here.

Further reading

• Beyond fossil fuel free

• Investing in a fossil fuel free future

Food delivers essential nutrition to sustain human life, and healthy food prevents disease and contributes to overall wellbeing.

However commercial agriculture can also have negative impacts on people, animals and the environment.

Therefore, we only invest in sustainable food production. We consider food sustainable and positive under our Ethical Charter if it meets the following criteria:

• forms part of a healthy diet

• is produced in an environmentally sustainable way

• avoids unnecessary harm to humans and animals

We don't invest in current systems of animal agriculture. We assess the harm to animals, the environment (including climate) and to people (antibiotic use) caused by current large-scale commercial animal agriculture as unnecessary because lower-impact, balanced plant-based diets can sustain healthy human life.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances is available here.

Further reading

• Advocating for plant-based diets

• Our ethical criteria when investing in food production

We avoid unnecessary harm to animals.

Our position is that non-human animals have the capacity to suffer and we should not cause them unnecessary harm. This means we avoid:

• industries that use animals for entertainment and sport. This includes horse and greyhound racing, as well as film and media companies that use wild captive animals in productions

• current systems of animal agriculture. We assess the harm to animals and the environment (including climate) caused by current large-scale commercial animal agriculture is unnecessary because lower impact, balanced plant-based diets can sustain healthy human life. See our position on agriculture.

• live animal export companies. See our position on live export.

• cosmetic companies that test their products or ingredients on animals. See our engagement with the healthcare sector to advance alternatives to animal research.

• healthcare companies that use animals for medical research unless they meet strict requirements. See our position on healthcare.

We support a variety of organisations working to advance the treatment of animals through our Foundation grants, and advocate for animals in our company engagements and through our public voice.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. Where a company makes a mistake, we’ll consider if the company has acted to fix the mistake and stop it happening again before we exclude.

See case study

We also think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

Further reading

Where Pigs Fly Farm Sanctuary – where animals roam free

We do not invest in live export.

We do not invest in live export companies or companies that raise animals for live export. We also avoid companies that specialise in facilitating the trade e.g. specialist transport companies.

Further reading

• Advocating for an end to live animal export

• We’re keeping up the fight against live animal export

Banks contribute to the transfer of money and capital across society and the economy, facilitating access to goods and services.

Poorly regulated banking and unnecessary financial products and services can cause harm by encouraging excessive borrowing and unnecessary risks and costs.

When assessing a bank we look at how:

• large banks assess environmental and social impacts of businesses when deciding whether to lend to them

• banks develop, market and manage their financial products and services in the interests of customers. We exclude banks which exploit people who are ill-equipped to make prudent financial decisions due to financial distress or inexperience.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. Where a company makes a mistake, we'll consider if the company has acted to fix the mistake and stop it happening again before we exclude.

See case study 

Further reading

Why do we invest in banks?

We recognise the potential value of GMOs and other products to alleviate food shortages, reduce pesticide use and produce biofuels.

However, in many cases we don’t see enough evidence to show they’re safe or that they’re appropriately regulated. This means we expect the proponents of Genetically Modified (GM) crops and organisms to provide evidence of safety before they’re adopted.

Companies need to satisfy concerns about the potential for:

• disruption to broader ecosystems

• contamination of non-genetically modified foods

• modified genes crossing from one species to another through cross-pollination

• genetically modified crops encouraging large monocultures, which are more vulnerable than diverse food sources and may harm bees and other animals

• new allergic or other reactions to modified foods

We are also concerned by:

• inadequate labelling in many countries of food containing GMOs, which limits the capacity of consumers to choose not to eat genetically modified food.

• inappropriate patent protection for GMOs, including the resulting limitation of farmer choice which may arise from the use of GMOs in open environments.

For these reasons we currently avoid companies which create GM organisms. We may invest in agricultural companies which use or sell food which has been grown using GM seeds. As research and experience grows in this area, we’ll keep reviewing our position.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

Further reading

Our ethical criteria when investing in food production

We do not invest in native or old growth forest logging.

We may invest in sustainable plantation timber production, and we would not rule out a company for selective logging to advance sustainable management of a forest.

We examine the environmental and animal impacts of any land clearing required to establish plantations, and look for Forestry Stewardship Council certification of the plantations. We do not automatically exclude a company that uses some non-certified timber, as we take into account the availability of certified timber and the positive and negative impacts of a company’s business.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity. More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

Further reading

We’re helping the Wilderness Society fight deforestation

We support marriage equality.

In line with our Ethical Charter that guides us to support human dignity and avoid discrimination.

Limiting access to the civil institution of marriage based on sexual orientation is discriminatory, and it stigmatises those who are denied access (as well as their families). We do not see why sexual preference should make a difference to the way people are entitled to have their relationship commitments recognised under Australian law. Like other legal and social institutions, marriage has developed over time. The extension of marriage to all adults is an important further step.

We invest in social media where companies are taking action to reduce harm from its misuse.

Social media creates a new world of opportunities for people to share information and connect with others. It can help break down physical barriers for people in remote, isolated areas. It can build connections and communication between individuals and groups with shared interests – as well as helping discussion of different interests and perspectives.

Social media can facilitate collaborative action to combat wrongdoing of governments, business and individuals. In its “Guide to online change-making”, Amnesty International describes how to use social media effectively and responsibly to advance human rights. Facebook helped people coordinate protests for democracy in several Middle Eastern countries during the Arab Spring in the early 2010s. Locally Getup organises social media campaigns for change on many important issues, including pressuring Transfield to end offshore detention of asylum seekers. More generally social media promotes business accountability by allowing consumers to share their experience of companies and their products.

Unfortunately social media can (like many new technologies) be misused and cause harm. It can amplify fake news as well as factual news. It can promote ‘slacktivism’ rather than effective activism. It can allow invasion of privacy as well as transparency. It can encourage trolling and bullying rather than real conversation. It can lead to groupthink and polarisation rather than growing understanding of different perspectives.

Despite these risks, we invest in social media because when used properly it can do good and enrich lives. We look for companies taking action to encourage more positive use of their social media platforms. Most social media has been designed with features which have facilitated or encouraged misuse. But we also see some companies now acting to re-design their platforms for more responsible use, for example through automated flagging and screening of hate speech and disputed news; by changing algorithms to give users more information of interest to them rather than to advertisers; and by providing resources for teens, parents and educators seeking support for online bullying. As with many new technologies we expect an ongoing ‘arms race’ between those interested in positive social media use and those trying to exploit social media for unethical purposes. We will invest to support the former.

We don’t believe fish farming is sustainable.

Although production of farmed fish is much less greenhouse gas-intensive than beef and lamb production, it is still significantly more emissions-intensive than sources of plant-based protein such as nuts and beans. It has become increasingly urgent that emissions are reduced across all sectors of the economy to reduce dangerous global warming. Given the availability of lower emissions plant-based sources of protein, we took the view that fish farming is not part of an optimal transition to achieve net zero global emissions.

We originally invested in salmon farmer Tassal on the basis that the production of farmed fish is lower in greenhouse gas emissions than beef and lamb production (and also uses less water). We also thought that aquaculture had the potential to reduce overfishing of wild fisheries. However, in March 2017 we made the decision to divest from Tassal because we were concerned about the sustainability of its feed supply (which includes wild caught fish). We also have concerns about the welfare of the fish and the impact of fish farms on the local environment.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

Further reading

• Why we need to stop fishing the high seas

• Divesting from Tassal

We avoid investment in most mining companies.

When looking at the mining sector we balance 3 main factors: the value that the mined mineral has to the well-being of society, the harms of the mining process for people, animals and the environment, and whether or not the mineral is a limited resource.

We look not only at the potential positive uses of the mineral, but also whether the amount required for those positive uses could be met from higher levels of recycling and reuse of previously mined material; or whether there are alternative, more sustainable materials which can fulfil the same function. We also consider how good a job the mining sector is doing at minimising its adverse social and environmental impacts.

From this, we avoid investment in most mining companies, including excluding fossil fuel companies. We may invest in companies mining minerals like lithium, cobalt and rare earths which are needed to help the transition to net zero. For example, we may invest in lithium mining companies which appropriately manage their social and environmental impacts because of the crucial role lithium plays in expanding battery energy storage needed for the transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

Further reading

Is your super fund invested in new coal mines?

We invest in healthcare because it enables people to live longer, healthier and happier lives.

Our healthcare investments include pharmaceutical and medical research companies who have passed our ethical assessment. When assessing healthcare companies we look at issues like systemic cases of misleading advertising or improper inducements. We also look at how companies conduct or commission animal research.

We invest in responsible healthcare and pharmaceutical companies whose products and services include access to abortion and contraception, to protect the choice and interests of women.

We recognise that animal research is currently a necessary part of developing important medicines and medical devices. Given sentient animals subjected to animal research can suffer extreme distress and pain, we expect companies that are involved in animal research (directly or indirectly) to take seriously their obligation to avoid and reduce animal suffering wherever possible, including by demonstrating genuine commitment to the 3R principles (replacement of animals, reduction in the number of animals used and refinement of conditions and methodology to reduce suffering).

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. Where a company makes a mistake, we'll consider if the company has acted to fix the mistake and stop it happening again before we exclude.

See case study

Further reading

• The healing power of technology

• Calling on the healthcare sector to advance alternatives to animal research

We do not invest in companies operating detention centres.

Local and international bodies like the Australian Human Rights Commission and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have identified many areas in which the operation of Australian detention centres breach international human rights principles. We support the ‘human rights floor’ developed by No Business in Abuse (NBIA) for treatment of people seeking asylum:

• zero tolerance for child abuse

• no arbitrary and indefinite detention

• no cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment

• transparency and effective monitoring.

Some argue that a company should not be criticised for simply implementing government policy. We disagree. Human rights transcend the laws and actions of individual countries, being universal rights possessed by all humans. Indeed international human rights law developed after World War II to protect against human rights violations committed by governments. Individuals and companies have a responsibility to respect human rights in their activities, independently of government policy.

Further reading

Let’s get the kids off Nauru

We expect companies to respect the customary rights of Indigenous peoples to lands, resources, and territories. This includes following credible processes for safeguarding principles of free, prior and informed consent of traditional owners.

We avoid investing in companies where we are aware of discrimination against indigenous people or exploitation of vulnerable customers; or companies that do not manage the risk of indigenous rights breaches in their supply chain or operations (where there is a material risk of such breaches).

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. For example, where a company makes a mistake, we’ll consider if the company has acted to fix the mistake and stop it happening again before we exclude.

See case study

Further reading

Australia Day: Why we need to change the date

Understanding and managing impacts on natural capital is essential for a sustainable future.

This is a fundamental part of our ethical assessment of different industries and companies. In deciding whether or not to invest in a company with a big environmental footprint, we consider their water, greenhouse gas emissions and other impacts to understand whether the business is causing unnecessary harm to the natural environment.

Overall, business impacts on natural capital need to be far better measured and reported. We are strong advocates for companies to produce sustainability and integrated reporting which deals with all the ‘six capitals’: not just financial and manufactured, but also intellectual, human, social and environmental capital.

We avoid companies operating in occupied or disputed territories where they are supporting illegitimate government control of those territories.

For example, we avoid companies operating in the Gaza Strip and West Bank where they support Israeli settlements or control in these areas. We follow the United Nations and broad international consensus that the Gaza Strip and West Bank are territories illegally occupied or controlled by Israel, and that this control (including the expansion of Israeli settlements) obstructs negotiations to establish a Palestinian state. 

We have also investigated concerns that wind turbines installed in the Western Sahara are facilitating the misappropriation of natural resources for the benefit of Morocco. We divested when the company failed to take appropriate action.

Our approach to assessing corporate involvement in human rights breaches is also addressed in the 'Human rights', 'Indigenous rights' and 'Offshore detention' topics on this page.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. Where a company makes a mistake, we’ll consider if the company has acted to fix the mistake and stop it happening again before we exclude.

See case study

Employee health, safety and general well-being are important factors we consider when making investment decisions.

We assess evidence of discrimination and exploitation of workers by companies. We also consider company practices which diminish the dignity of employees.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. Where a company makes a mistake, we’ll consider if the company has acted to fix the mistake and stop it happening again before we exclude. 

See case study

We avoid investment in companies that discriminate and engage with companies that lack gender diversity at senior leadership levels.

Where there is evidence of discrimination, we investigate whether the company has taken action to remedy and prevent recurrence of the breach, and to ensure all have an equal opportunity for recruitment and advancement.

Challenging direct discrimination is only part of the solution. For example, companies with high existing levels of male representation can perpetuate gender imbalance if they fail to take steps to ensure a positive work environment for all employees.

We engage annually with domestic companies in our portfolio that have a low representation of females at senior leadership levels and on the board. Where we see a lack of commitment to diversity and inclusion we may vote against the chair of the nominations committee or chair of the board at the company AGM, or divest from the company.

We also ask companies about their approach to diversity beyond gender, including culture, orientation and background. Australian companies can also explore opportunities to promote reconciliation with First Nations people, including through employment and internships, as well as through consultation around any impacts of operations, procurement, products or services where relevant. We acknowledge we can be doing more on this front ourselves.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. Where a company makes a mistake, we’ll consider if the company has acted to fix the mistake and stop it happening again before we exclude. 

See case study

Further reading

Rectifying the gender imbalance

We strongly support the green bond market.

The climate and broader green bond market has the potential to help drive much needed additional investment to renewables and other clean economy investments like energy efficient technologies and infrastructure. The Climate Bonds Initiative is dedicated to mobilising the US$100+ trillion global bond market towards climate change solutions. In 2021 ‘climate-aligned’ and other green bonds grew to over US$1 trillion (1,000 billion).

But we also believe individual bond issues should be monitored carefully to ensure that they are actually helping to drive capital to climate solutions. For climate bonds issued by banks, it’s important to ensure that the bonds do in practice help to shift lending from emissions intensive to climate friendly sectors.

We do not invest in companies that unnecessarily create, encourage or perpetuate militarism or engage in the manufacture of armaments.

Simply, we don’t invest in companies that make weapons. We also have restrictions on companies which make components used to make weapons. When we are considering investment in government bonds, we assess the extent to which the country uses its military to aggressively defend or promote its national interest; and the extent of military influence in the government of the country.

We don’t invest in the alcohol industry, including brewers, distillers, wine makers and pubs.

We are concerned by the social, health and financial harms caused by the problematic relationship which many people have with alcohol, often contributed to by marketing and peer pressures.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

We’ll invest in electric car manufacturers like Tesla.

We generally avoid the airline and automobile sectors because the amount of fossil fuel used by planes and cars currently exceeds the level needed to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees. Most mainstream auto companies and airlines are failing to make sufficient investment in electric cars and renewable biofuel alternatives to petroleum. We prefer to invest in mass transport such as rail which has lower emissions and also reduces congestion and other pollutants.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

Insurance helps the sharing of risk across society.

It can provide important protection against injuries or accidents that individuals, families and organisations may find it difficult to cope with from their own resources.

Unfortunately, insurance companies can fail their clients: Insurance may be ‘mis-sold’, with consumers paying excessive fees and commissions and in some cases ending up with inappropriate insurance – too much cover, too little cover or the wrong type of cover. Insurance companies can also be mismanaged, leaving them unable or unwilling to pay insurance claims. For this reason when we assess a specific insurance company under our Ethical Charter, we look at factors like levels of customer complaints and satisfaction levels and regulator penalties. We also consider how they take into account environmental and social impacts when making insurance and investment decisions.

Our ethics are defined by our Ethical Charter.

We assess every investment against the 23 positive and negative principles of our public Ethical Charter. The Charter guides us to invest in companies that support people, animals and the environment and do not cause unnecessary harm.

By looking at our Ethical Charter (unchanged since we were founded in 1986), people can see whether their values are aligned with ours. We find that most agree that people, animals and the environment are important, but they will sometimes strike a different balance between the interests of different groups (including the interests of current and future generations). For example, infrastructure development may cause harm to a specific community or animal habitat but bring benefits to a broader region, and these impacts need to be weighed against each other. Differences can also arise because it is hard to predict the future positive and negative impacts of a particular activity – we live in a very complex world.

Further reading

• How to live an ethical life and change the world

• Investing ethically for a better world

We invest in Australia and internationally.

Some of the deepest ethical challenges facing the planet are global. Catastrophic climate change can only be averted if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced across the globe. The alleviation of poverty also demands an international approach. From a financial point of view, there are also good reasons for Australians to consider inclusion of overseas investments in their superannuation. We offer a range of local, international and mixed investment options and funds.

We don’t invest in nuclear.

Nuclear power has potential benefits as a low carbon source of energy, but the risks of current commercial nuclear technologies outweigh those benefits.

We don’t invest in nuclear because:

• Nuclear technologies and materials can be used to make weapons including by rogue groups or states

• Harmful radiation from mining, transport and storage of uranium and long-lived nuclear waste

• The risk of catastrophic failure of nuclear power stations

• These risks outweigh the potential benefits of nuclear energy as a low carbon source of energy, particularly when there are renewable energy alternatives as well as battery, pumped hydro and other forms of energy storage.

If new nuclear technologies emerge to address these risks, we would consider them as they are developed, tested and commercialised.

Some argue that nuclear weapons deter military aggression. We don’t agree. The ‘nuclear deterrent’ won’t stop accidental detonation or launch, it works less well in crisis situations and it often won’t work at all for rogue states and other groups who are prepared to act with little regard to the risk of retaliation.

We don’t exclude investment in nuclear medicine for diagnosis and therapy in healthcare.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

Further reading

The nuclear risk matrix

We do not have a blanket exclusion for chemical or pesticide companies.

Excessive and inappropriate use of chemicals and pesticides is a major concern, but both naturally and non-naturally occurring chemicals can have beneficial uses. We will look at companies and chemicals on a case by case basis. We work to exercise a positive investor influence by supporting the Chemical Footprint Project, which is encouraging companies to better manage and disclose how they deal with chemicals in their products, manufacturing operations, and supply chains.

We don’t invest in tobacco companies.

We have a zero revenue threshold for tobacco farming or tobacco product manufacture, and limits on indirect involvement. For example, we won't invest in packaging company Amcor because it earns significant revenue from making cigarette packaging. We divested from the Norwegian company Tomra when it invested in technology to sort tobacco. We won’t invest in a supermarket which is mis-selling tobacco products or selling them at above market levels.

Further reading

The case against tobacco investment

We don’t invest in the gambling industry.

This is because of the financial, psychological and relationship harm caused to problem gamblers and their families.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

Further reading

Australia needs to kick its pokies addiction

We avoid palm oil production because of the impact of land clearing including on local communities and wildlife habitat.

This position extends to palm oil production for both food and bio-fuel uses. We do invest in companies that use palm oil as an input ingredient. When we assess a company with exposure to palm oil, we look for evidence of responsible sourcing and ‘no deforestation’ policies and commitments. 

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

We don’t invest in companies which produce pornography.

This is because of the harm from potential exploitation of actors and others involved in its production, as well as the damage pornography can cause to young people's and others’ attitudes to sex and relationships. While pornography can be produced and consumed ethically, our concern is that too often it isn’t. We don’t exclude investment in sex toys or sex education.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

We generally avoid investing in new large scale hydro-electricity projects because of their displacement of people and animals, harm to ecosystems and release of methane.

Where a company is involved in positive activities (e.g. generation of electricity from solar or wind power), its ownership of an existing large scale hydro project will not prevent our investment. This is because most of the social and environmental impacts have already (unfortunately) been incurred, and the project at least offers the opportunity to generate emission-free electricity (alongside the other positive activities of the company).

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. We think a company with positive products and services can be an ethical investment even though it earns some revenue from a negative product or activity.

More information about our revenue tolerances are available here.

Further reading

Your guide to renewable energy

A healthy news and media sector offers reliable information and diverse viewpoints which inform and educate readers, viewers and listeners.

It is essential to the proper functioning of democracy.

It is important to distinguish a free media from an unbiased media. While bias in media has negative consequences, this harm is reduced if media freedom allows a diverse range of media outlets and the public are exposed to a multitude of viewpoints.

We have excluded investment in News Corp because of serious reporting bias, including in its coverage of climate change.

Using waste to produce energy is one way we can manage waste more sustainably.

While we need to avoid the creation of waste in the first place and recycle waste where possible, we can also use the residual waste we do create to produce energy. Waste-to-energy is a process of incineration and gasification that can reduce emissions when compared with alternatives like landfill or landfill-gas to energy. Continuing advances in waste to energy technology is increasing its efficiency and reducing risk of dangerous emissions.

Further reading

The UK’s debate guide about waste to energy

We avoid companies which intentionally arrange their corporate structure and transactions to illegally avoid paying tax.

A fair tax system is essential to the proper functioning of society and the economy. Companies should pay their fair share of tax and observe the spirit of the tax law. This does not mean that companies can’t legitimately minimise tax liabilities. For example, a government may offer a tax break through accelerated depreciation to encourage companies to invest in new infrastructure. In this case we think it’s legitimate for a company to bring forward the timing of investment to take advantage of the tax break, since that’s in line with the reason the tax break was introduced.

Unfortunately it will often be difficult to work out what is and isn’t in line with the intention of the tax law. Generally the use of ‘tax havens’ would prompt further enquiry. However, there are some circumstances in which the use of low tax countries may be appropriate, for example, to help multinational companies avoid double taxation i.e. a requirement to pay tax on the same income in more than one country.

So what’s the bottom line? We avoid companies which intentionally arrange their corporate structure and transactions to illegally avoid paying tax.

There are exceptions to our investment exclusions. Where a company makes a mistake, we’ll consider if the company has acted to fix the mistake and stop it happening again before we exclude. 

See case study

Legitimate and accountable governments play an important role in creating conditions necessary for the advancement of the well-being of people, animals and the environment.

Our ethical criteria for governments focus on the quality of democracy, taking account of factors like political rights, civil liberties, rule of law, quality of public institutions and levels of corruption. We will not invest in securities issued by undemocratic states, and democratic governments can also be excluded for militarism.

Even governments operating in strong democracies will have many polices which we disagree with. In these cases we think the most effective way for us to pursue positive change is to advocate for more sustainable policies through government consultations and submissions, and through our public voice in the media which can influence both governments and voters.