Industry superannuation fund, Rest has agreed to settle litigation brought by its member, Mark McVeigh, creating a climate risk fiduciary precedent.
In 2017, McVeigh filed legal action against the fund for breaching fiduciary duties by failing to adequately handle climate change risk.
Today, Rest issued a statement that said it would take further steps to ensure its investment managers took active steps to consider, measure, and manage financial risks posed by climate change and other relevant environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks.
It noted that it would use “a variety of mechanisms” to access and, if necessary, take steps to improve the compliance of its investment managers.
Rest said climate change was a “material, direct, and current financial risk” to super funds across risk categories such as investment, market, reputational, strategic, governance, and third-party risks.
Rest said it considered that it was important to actively identify and manage these issues, and continue to develop systems, policies and processes to ensure that the financial risks or climate change were:
“Rest’s policy requires that the management of climate change risks also involves the disclosure to members of those risks, as well as the systems, policies and procedures maintained by the trustee to address those risks,” it said.
“Rest agrees with Mr McVeigh to continue to develop its management processes for dealing with the financial risks of climate change on behalf of its members.”
The statement said that McVeigh acknowledged and supported Rest’s initiatives to:
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.