Earlier this year, the ANU Environment Collective (EC) released a report on Australian universities’ private investment standards and commitments as part of its ANU ZERO campaign, seeking to advocate for stricter standards and divestment of university endowment funds from fossil fuel and weapons companies. In a recent opinion article written for Woroni, the ANUSA environment officer, Sarah Strange, discussed this report and its implications for the ANU.

To summarise the report, the Collective argued that ANU has fallen behind many other comparable universities on its Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) strategy, which, amongst other issues, maintains a loose commitment against coal investment, but lets fossil fuel and gas corporations slip by. One notable example was Woodside Energy, which ANU has invested over $6 million, but which is a company that Strange argued has a “...history of skirting environmental laws and failing to reduce emissions…”. In contrast, one third of all Australian universities have committed to stricter screening against fossil fuel corporations, or corporations that primarily produce fossil fuels, including half of the Group of Eight. 

Woroni contacted the ANU and received a detailed response to the report by the Chief Financial Officer, Michael Lonergan.

Speaking on the ANU’s current investment exemptions for coal, but not oil or gas, Lonergan responded, “…although there is no negative screen on oil and gas companies, the SRI Policy’s carbon intensity target means the Long Term Investment Pool’s (LTIP) exposure to these companies is lower than the benchmark.” Additionally, Lonergan pointed out that the ANU has drastically reduced its “weighted average carbon intensity” by approximately 20% since 2023, and on its domestic investments, carbon intensity has fallen by over 65% in the past decade. For those of us not familiar with environmental science or investment strategies of an institution with a portfolio of over $1.3 billion, carbon intensity in this context refers to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by a company relative to its revenue. ANU’s previously reported 2023 intensity was at 110. For comparison, an index of the top 200 ASX companies had an intensity of 216. However, it is worth noting that the 2023 report indicated that close to 10% of ANU’s investments had no reported carbon data and could possibly skew results.

Another feature of the EC report was a critique of ANU’s own commitment to their policy. ANU’s 2023 SRI report disclosed that 3.28 percent of its investment pool was in violation of its own carbon rules, despite ANU having committed to divestment. While that may seem small, in an investment portfolio of this scale, this amounts to over $43 million. When asked about its progress on the divestment, Lonergan disclosed that the percentage of the investment pool not compliant had decreased to 2.8% by the end of 2024, due to “…the wind-up of one of the legacy investments…”. Furthermore, Lonergan indicated that the remaining noncompliant assets include “…an investment made prior to the adoption of the SRI Policy, currently in runoff”, and “…an illiquid infrastructure fund…”, with a high carbon intensity. ANU apparently “…intends to liquidate as many of its units as possible in 2025.” It did not disclose any details on specific investments. 

Whilst separate from the EC’s primary purpose for climate action, its report also commented on ANU’s current weapons investment policy. Following large-scale community agitation in 2024, ANU implemented policy screens against investment in ‘controversial weapons’ and civilian small arms manufacturers, a decision based on research from Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), a private investment advisory firm. ISS defines controversial weapons and corporate involvement against criteria based on international norms such as the Mine Ban Treaty, and it also excludes companies that “…manufacture key components in controversial weapons…”. The ANU’s connections to the defence industry have drawn considerable attention in the past year with divestment from the industry being a primary campaign goal of 2024’s pro-Palestine encampment and the subject of a successful ANUSA referendum. The EC found that two Australian universities have committed against investing in any weapons companies, and strongly advocated for ANU to commit to a broader policy. 

When asked about the prospects of a policy change, ANU just stated that the SRI policy will be reviewed periodically, however made no specific commitment to further change, with the University appearing committed to its current stance. 

ANU and its financial team have revealed this information in advance of their 2024 Socially Responsible Investments Report, which has historically provided extensive reporting on its progress towards its sustainability targets, such as net zero. This year’s report is due to be released in June 2025 and will include more comprehensive data on ANU’s investment policies and their effectiveness.