In 2020, AustralianSuper, Australia’s largest superannuation fund with $388bn in assets and 3.7 million members, announced a major policy shift: its investment portfolio would target net zero carbon emissions in line with the Paris agreement. To underscore this commitment, the fund sold its holdings in Whitehaven Coal, a major thermal and metallurgical coal miner.
Fast forward to 2026, and AustralianSuper is now Whitehaven’s single biggest investor, holding a stake worth more than $600m. Whitehaven operates six coal mines in New South Wales and Queensland and is developing new projects. This reversal has perplexed many in the superannuation sector, raising questions about whether the industry leader is aligning its portfolio with its climate goals.
Investment Raises Concerns Over Climate Alignment
While most super providers invest in fossil fuels, many heavily restrict exposure to thermal coal due to its environmental damage. Geoff Warren, an associate professor at the Australian National University and research director at the Conexus Institute, called the investment “not good optics.” He said, “I looked at that investment and thought, why did they do that? They must have thought the investment was sufficiently attractive that they were going to invest, and that is a signal to me that the fund is focused primarily on the investment case and overlooking broader climate-related risks.”
An AustralianSuper spokesperson defended the investment, stating the fund regularly reassesses energy and resources investments and that “the energy transition will not be linear.” The spokesperson added: “We invested in Whitehaven because it provided an investment opportunity given its market valuation combined with an expanded and geographically diversified asset exposure to metallurgical coal, which is currently a key component of steel production for the global economy.”
Criticism from Advocacy Groups
Naomi Hogan, head of engagement and sector strategy at the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, said super funds need to better assess emissions plans of companies they invest in. “Some of Australia’s major super funds have been quite passive in their approach to company stewardship, and there is a risk that this makes it harder for other funds to act strongly and publicly on climate,” she said. She noted that some companies’ emissions targets are vague or rely on offsets or unproven technology like carbon capture.
Brett Morgan, senior analyst at Market Forces, said AustralianSuper’s investment could only be justified if it used its position to demand an end to Whitehaven’s expansion plans. “AustralianSuper supported Whitehaven Coal’s plan for executive pay in 2025, which incentivises its chief executive to pursue coal growth at the expense of a stable retirement for super fund members,” Morgan said. “AustralianSuper has an abysmal voting record as an investor that demonstrates a failure to hold some of Australia’s biggest polluters to account over the past five years.”
Public Opinion and Other Controversial Investments
Research by Lonergan Research, commissioned by Australian Ethical, found that four in five Australians surveyed want their super to avoid social harms, including environmental damage. Alison George, chief impact and ethics officer at Australian Ethical, said: “Companies like Whitehaven Coal and Woodside are excluded from our portfolios because their main business is fossil fuels and the extraction of coal, oil or gas.”
AustralianSuper is also a major shareholder in Woodside Energy, an oil and gas company with expansion plans. According to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report after the 2015 Paris agreement, greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure are more than enough to push the world beyond its climate goals.
In 2024, AustralianSuper sold down its stake in Mineral Resources over governance issues, vowing to engage with the board. CEO Chris Ellison said he would step down within 18 months, but 20 months later he remains head of the company. AustralianSuper has since rebuilt its stake to become the second largest shareholder. The fund spokesperson said it never fully divested and kept engaging, noting improvements after a new chair was appointed. In contrast, Hesta, another major super fund, maintained its position and sold down its MinRes stake, stating Ellison’s “succession timeframe did not reflect the seriousness of the issues.”
