A major Australian super fund has been accused of greenwashing after it continued to badge an investment option as “sustainable” despite halving its environmental criteria.
UniSuper, which invests $158bn on behalf of 670,000 members, promotes its Global Environmental Opportunities option as a portfolio “selected on the basis of environmental considerations”.
Initially the option invested only in companies and assets that derive at least 40% of their revenue from “environmental themes” such as alternative energy, energy efficiency and “green building”. The fund also applied “negative screens”, excluding investments on the basis of exposure to products such as fossil fuels or weapons.
In March 2025 UniSuper reduced the threshold to 20%, and the Global Environmental Opportunities option now lists several technology companies, including Microsoft and Nvidia, among its top investments.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
On Thursday the Environmental Defenders Office lodged a formal complaint with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic) on behalf of UniSuper member John Dixon, accusing the fund of potentially misleading representations.
The concerns included retaining the name and presenting the option on UniSuper’s website under the heading “sustainable and environmental branded options”, despite watering down its environmental criteria.
A spokesperson for UniSuper said changes to the Global Environmental Opportunities option were made “to expand the investible universe while maintaining the option’s environmental theme”.
Dixon said he was shocked to find several technology companies among the option’s top investments, including some with significant and rising greenhouse gas emissions.
“I thought, this can’t be right, someone has made a mistake.”
UniSuper communicated the changes to members via its website and in an email to members. The email did not contain a summary of the changes but invited people to click through to a pdf document.
“Having made the change they really didn’t explain it to members,” Dixon said. “Hardly anybody would have twigged.”
The complaint letter said: “The weakening of the investment criteria for the GEO option and paucity of communication to members regarding this change contribute to the likelihood that option holders and prospective option holders have been misled by UniSuper’s conduct.” It asked Asic 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 he UniSuper should change the name of the fund and be more upfront with members about changes to the investment criteria.