A major Australian super fund has been accused of greenwashing after quietly halving its environmental standards but continuing to badge an investment option as “sustainable”.
UniSuper, which invests $158bn on behalf of 670,000 members, promotes its Global Environmental Opportunities selection as a portfolio “selected on the basis of environmental considerations”.
Initially only investments were made in companies and assets that derive at least 40% of revenue from “environmental themes” such as alternative energy, energy efficiency and “green building”. The fund also applied “adverse screens” excluding investments based on exposure to products such as fossil fuels or arms.
UniSuper lowered the threshold to 20% in March 2025 and the Global Environmental Opportunities Option now lists a number of technology companies, including Microsoft and Nvidia, among its top investments.
Sign up for: AU Breaking News Email
On Thursday the Environmental Defenders Office made a formal complaint to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic) on behalf of UniSuper member John Dixon.
Concerns include retaining the name and displaying the selection under the heading “Sustainable and Eco-Branded Options” on the Unisuper website, despite watered-down environmental standards.
A Unisuper spokesperson said the changes were made to the Global Environmental Opportunities option “to expand the investable universe while continuing the environmental theme of the option”.
Dixon said he was shocked to find several technology companies among the pick’s top investments, some of which have significant and growing greenhouse gas emissions.
“I thought, this isn’t right, somebody made a mistake.”
UniSuper will notify members of the changes through its website and by email to members. The email did not contain a summary of the changes but invited people to click on a pdf document.
“After the change was made they didn’t explain it to the members,” Dixon said. “Somebody wouldn’t have hit the branches.”
The complaint letter stated: “Option holders and prospective option holders are likely to be misled by UniSuper’s conduct due to the weakening of the investment criteria for the GEO option and the lack of communication to members regarding this change.” Asik was asked to investigate.
Dixon wrote to UniSuper in August outlining his concerns, but decided to make a formal complaint after receiving a response he found unsatisfactory.
He said Unisuper Fund should change its name and be more upfront with members about changes in investment criteria.
