Many Australians are unwittingly investing in 'sin stocks' through their super fund.
DO YOU support tobacco companies, gambling and the makers of weapons and pornography? Before you answer no, you might want to check your superannuation fund.
Ethical investment researchers say many Australians are unwittingly investing in ''sin stocks'' because they have not examined their super funds or because their funds do not actively promote their investments.
Melbourne surgeon Benjamin Cook is one of those taken by surprise.
He was horrified to learn that one of his funds, Health Super, counted Imperial Tobacco Group, British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International in its top 10 international investments despite marketing itself as the ''fund for people who care''.
The discovery prompted him to dump the multibillion-dollar fund, which represents about 200,000 health and community service workers.
''I'm an ear, nose and throat surgeon who sees throat cancer every day, so to think we're blindly supporting tobacco is bizarre,'' he said.
Sarah Clawson, of the Responsible Investment Association of Australasia, said despite a shift towards more ''socially responsible'' or ''sustainable'' investments in the super industry over the past decade, many funds still invested in companies that some people might consider unethical.
For example, people passionate about environmental sustainability may be shocked to find their money in mining stocks or companies that log old-growth forests, she said. Companies that made gaming machines, liquor, tobacco products, armaments and pornography were also commonly found in fund portfolios.
She said that only about 35 of more than 400 super funds in Australia had signed up to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment but she hoped the number would grow as more people challenged their funds to invest more ethically.
''It usually takes a scandal for people to think 'What is my super doing?','' she said. ''For example, back in 2008 in the Netherlands, people found out that their fund was investing in cluster bombs ? People took to the streets and it made the fund change its policy.''
Chris Clausen, former chief executive of Health Super and now deputy chief executive of First State Super, the company Health Super was in the process of merging with, said although the fund did not condone smoking or necessarily want to support tobacco companies, the reality was that ''from an investment hypothesis, tobacco companies stack up''.
He said that while Health Super had a socially responsible investment option that excluded tobacco companies among others, only about 2000 of its 200,000 members had taken it up over the past eight years.
Mr Clausen said one employer had been asking the fund to stop investing in tobacco companies, a demand that was being considered.
Nathan MacPhee, the chief executive of superannuation research company Super Ratings, said if people wanted to choose ethical investments, they should consider the relationships between companies because they might find worrying layers of investment beneath a seemingly innocuous stock.
For example, if someone wanted to avoid gambling, they may choose to eliminate Woolworths, given it was one of the largest owners of poker machines.
While this approach could take hours of research, Mr MacPhee said the effort could be worthwhile.
''You're generally not sacrificing performance if you choose socially good investments ? the evidence we have is that they perform similar to the mainstream and in some cases, they're in front.''
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What are “sin stocks” and could my superannuation fund be investing in them?
“Sin stocks” are companies in industries many people consider unethical — for example tobacco, gambling, armaments, pornography, liquor, mining or logging. The article explains that many Australians are unwittingly invested in these sectors through their super funds because they haven’t checked their investment holdings or because funds don’t always promote what they own.
Which specific companies did the article name as examples of tobacco or gambling investments in super funds?
The article named Imperial Tobacco Group, British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International as tobacco companies found in one fund’s top international holdings. It also used Woolworths as an example of a company often linked to gambling exposure because it is one of the largest owners of poker machines.
How can I check whether my super fund invests in tobacco, gambling or weapons?
The article recommends simply checking your superannuation fund and asking questions about its holdings. Look at your fund’s investment reports or member materials, ask the fund directly which companies and sectors it invests in, and see whether it offers a socially responsible investment option that excludes things like tobacco or gambling.
Do super funds offer ethical or socially responsible investment options?
Yes — many funds now offer socially responsible or sustainable options. The article notes Health Super had a socially responsible option that excluded tobacco and other industries, although uptake was low (about 2,000 of its roughly 200,000 members had chosen it). Overall the industry has shifted toward more sustainable options over the past decade, but availability and uptake vary by fund.
If I switch to an ethical super option, will I sacrifice investment performance?
According to the article, research cited by industry experts suggests you’re generally not sacrificing performance by choosing socially good investments. Evidence indicates they perform similarly to mainstream options and in some cases outperform them.
How common is it for Australian super funds to commit to international responsible investment standards?
The article states that only about 35 of more than 400 Australian super funds had signed up to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment at the time — indicating formal commitments to those standards were still relatively uncommon.
What might prompt my super fund to change an investment policy on controversial companies?
The article explains that public pressure and scandals often trigger change. It gives the example of 2008 in the Netherlands, when revelations that a fund was investing in cluster bombs led to public protest and a subsequent change in fund policy. Similarly, employers or member complaints can push funds to reconsider investments.
If I want to avoid indirect exposure to gambling or other harmful sectors, what should I look for?
The article suggests investigating corporate relationships and ownership layers — a seemingly innocent stock can have worrying links beneath the surface. For example, if you want to avoid gambling exposure you might eliminate companies that own large poker-machine operations (the article cites Woolworths). This kind of research can take time but may be worthwhile for investors seeking ethical alignment.