Future Super measures environmental impact of portfolioBY RACHEL ALEMBAKIS | FRIDAY, 26 JUN 2020 10:10AMFuture Super has released its second impact report, measuring the fund's environmental impact both in terms of fossil fuel investments avoided and renewable energy that investments have generated. |
Editor's Choice
Australian Ethical adds $1bn to FUM in three months
The ethical manager wrapped up the financial year with a strong performance, gaining almost $1 billion in FUM to $14.5 billion from the March quarter.
Lower battery costs advancing Australia's net-zero goals: CSIRO
Renewable energy backed storage remains the lowest-cost pathway to achieving Australia's net zero electricity system, according to the latest GenCost report from CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO).
AMGC, ARENA launch $10m fund for industrial decarbonisation
Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre (AMGC) has launched a $10 million fund with the backing from Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) to help accelerate industrial decarbonisation through co-investment in smaller manufacturing facilities.
Microsoft emissions jump on data centres buildout
Microsoft has reported a jump of 25% in its total greenhouse gas emissions in the financial year 2025.
Further Reading




"According to recent research from Rainmaker Information ... if a superannuation fund member invested in general balanced or growth super fund options they would have been 1.5% better off over the 12-months to end March if they chose ESG balanced or growth options."
Is there a link to the research? Does this apply to Future Super's options or to some general ESG classification of investment components and therefore also to other super funds that offer ethical and sustainable social impact investment?
Hi Professor Davos,
The research is derived from Rainmaker Information, the parent company to this publication. It refers to a general balanced or growth super fund option compared to a general ESG balanced or growth option (not just Future Super).