ASIC hits HESTA with $37,560 penalty
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has imposed a $37,560 penalty on industry superannuation fund HESTA over misleading statements about carbon emissions.
Another industry fund, Prime Super also received an infringement notice and paid a $18,780 penalty.
ASIC alleged HESTA made the misleading statements in paid advertisements about its commitment to removing carbon emissions investments in that between 15 April 2021 to 18 December 2024, HESTA placed paid advertisements on the Google and Bing search platforms which stated, ‘HESTA is committed to remove all investment in carbon emissions by 2050….’
The advertisement was linked to the ‘Why Join’ page on the HESTA website.
ASIC said it was concerned that the advertisements represented that HESTA planned to remove all investment in carbon emissions by 2050 when that was not HESTA’s plan. Instead, HESTA’s target was to achieve net zero carbon emissions across its investment portfolio by 2050 which is different to removing all investments in carbon as net zero can be achieved through offsetting.
ASIC’s Deputy Chair Sarah Court said that in making the representations, HESTA overstated its commitment to reducing investment in carbon emissions.’
“Consumers relying on HESTA’s representation may have been denied the opportunity to make informed decisions about their preferred superannuation provider when HESTA gave a false impression that its commitment to reducing carbon emissions was more ambitious than it actually was.”
HESTA reported the incident to ASIC.
Prime Super paid $18,780 to comply with an infringement notice issued by ASIC in which ASIC alleged that Prime Super as the Trustee of the Prime Super Superannuation Fund (Fund) made misleading statements about the Fund’s investments.
Between 16 October 2023 and 11 June 2025, Prime Super publicly stated in its 2023 annual report that manufacturers of tobacco products were ‘excluded entirely’ from the Fund.
However, during the same period, the Fund indirectly invested in companies involved with tobacco manufacturing, including:
- Altria Group Inc
- British American Tobacco PLC
- Imperial Brands Finance PLC
- JT International Financial Services BV
- Philip Morris International Inc
- Reynolds American Inc.
Wow, hit with an ASIC wet lettuce leaf.
So, when a not-for-profit fund gets hit with a penalty who really pays the penalty??? The members????
Unbelievable , no deterrent whatsoever. They can say what they want , members then have to pay the fine , and the members that joined during the period will never know that they trustees blatantly lied over their ESG Moral high ground .
Wow, that will show them. Now tell me what you think about these fines v’s HESTA…
Active Super: The Federal Court ordered Active Super to pay a $10.5 million penalty for misleading environmental, social, and governance (ESG) claims made in its marketing materials, including on its website. The fund claimed it eliminated investments in areas like gambling and coal mining, but ASIC found it held such investments.
Mercer Superannuation: Was ordered to pay an $11.3 million penalty for “greenwashing.” ASIC found Mercer made misleading statements on its website about its “Sustainable Plus” investment options, claiming they excluded investments in companies involved in carbon-intensive fossil fuels, alcohol, and gambling, which was not the case.
Vanguard Investments Australia: While an investment manager rather than a super fund, Vanguard was ordered to pay a $12.9 million penalty for misleading claims about ESG exclusionary screens applied to one of its funds, which was marketed to the public
Did they miss a few zeros on the fine?
Remind me AGAIN about the $31,300 paid by a few financial advice practices for minor admin mistakes (no consumer detriment) regarding the registration of advisers.
This is yet another disgraceful example of ‘two-tiered’ penalties.
Members pay the fine anyhow it seems.
Disgusting.