This article first appeared on Diligent Market Intelligence's Voting newswire. To register for a demonstration and trial of the product, click here.
As ESG comes under pressure globally, Australia remains an important test case for climate-focused investor activism. Kyle Robertson, head of research at Market Forces, speaks about the country’s engaged shareholder base, the escalating pressure on fossil fuel producers and the banks that finance them, as well as the next phase of campaigning that has broadened the advocacy group's focus to Japan. In other markets such as the U.S., we have seen a steep drop off in E&S shareholder proposals and related support amid an evolving political and regulatory landscape. What distinguishes the Australian market when it comes to ESG topics and how they resonate with the investors base? In Australia, we've always had a very open and democratic approach to AGMs and shareholder proposals, which is an important part of corporate democracy here. We also have a pretty different political operating environment to the U.S. with a government pursuing a very ambitious renewable energy target domestically but yet still pursuing a fossil fuel expansion strategy for Australia’s export markets. We've also got a very engaged finance sector when it comes to our pension funds - the superannuation funds. They've been very engaged in voting on climate-related proposals at fossil fuel companies and banks, but also voting on directors at fossil fuel companies as part of their stewardship escalation approach. Can you expand on some of your recent campaigns at major energy companies, including continued engagement at Woodside? Every year, Woodside's AGM is a huge event. It's the biggest oil and gas company in Australia and it's been pursuing one of the most aggressive oil and gas expansion strategies in the world recently that flies in the face of global climate goals. It's become a real flashpoint here in Australia because a lot of our superannuation funds claim commitment to the goals of the Paris Agreement and say that they will align their voting practices with what's required to achieve that. The 60% vote against Woodside's climate plan in 2024 was a record-breaking vote at the time, but we haven't seen that fully transferred to directors being held fully accountable for the strategy that they're overseeing. In Europe, one of the key campaigns where climate surfaced this season saw BP’s then-chair attract 19% opposition to his reelection amid broader concern over shareholder rights and governance. Do you see any similar tensions in the Australian market? It’s an interesting question because the former Woodside CEO, Meg O'Neill, is now the current BP CEO. One of the things that really stood out for us when she pivoted from Woodside to BP was that she moved away from overseeing a company pursuing an extremely aggressive oil and gas expansion strategy to one that's in the process of doing that again. It was quite encouraging to see at the BP AGM that its expenditure on oil and gas exploration was really under the spotlight. It's the same case at Woodside. It's the same case at Santos. It's the same case at our oil and gas companies here in Australia, which is that there may be windfall gains currently for oil and gas companies from the crisis in Iran, but that doesn't translate to windfall gains in the future by investing in new projects now, because the statistics just don't bear out that it's good value for money. As the planet heats up more and more, as renewables and batteries become cheaper than fossil fuels, those investments are going to become risky, and we don't think it's a good use of shareholder capital. With banks also feeling the heat on financing fossil fuel companies, how have your proposals been received in the sector? It's always been a focus for us at Market Forces with our big four Australian banks: ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, NAB and Westpac. We've seen that those proposals gained a lot of support with many voting for efforts to push the lenders to limit their finance to fossil fuel companies to those that could prove that they had a credible climate transition plan to line with Paris. To see a huge amount of investor support for those proposals in 2024 was game-changing. Last year, another major event concerned Macquarie, which is our fifth biggest bank, where we secured 35% support - the highest vote we had ever achieved on a climate proposal at an Australian bank. That was achieved even against the tide that was happening in 2025 with climate losing traction. It’s been really encouraging to see that investors are still staying the course in many respects, despite the global backsliding that is resulting from immense political pressure. We have also seen the winding down of many climate coalitions including the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). What impact has this had on the wider climate movement? The NZBA was certainly useful from an image standpoint, to have the vast majority of the world's banks committed to aligning themselves with the goals of the Paris Agreement. But it was an incredibly flawed initiative that was voluntary and driven by the members that made it up, so unfortunately, it tended to get pulled to its lowest common denominator. Those banks that wanted to take the least “radical” action were the ones who set the tone for the rest of the alliance. When it started to collapse, there was a big fear that this would see global backsliding and things were going to get worse. But I think what the NZBA did was give the laggard banks the opportunity to greenwash their reputation. A great example of that here in Australia was that the U.S. banks were the first six to pull themselves out of the NZBA. Then Macquarie jumped. Market Forces has also expanded its focus to Japan with a recent campaign targeting banking giants. What do you hope to achieve there? The reality is that the Japanese banks have been among the biggest financiers of fossil fuels in the world since the Paris Agreement was signed over a decade ago, and that shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, while a lot of their global peers, particularly in Europe, Australia and across the world, are implementing more stringent policies on what they can and can't finance, the Japanese banks are very much operating in a “business as usual” environment. That includes directly financing a lot of the new U.S. gas export projects. So, it really comes down to directors managing the risks, both at a company level, but also at a systemic level for the company's long-term financial health. The reality is that banks around the world, particularly banks the size of Japan's banks, have the power to shape the energy system and the economies of the future. What are your future focus plans? Our focus remains in the Asia Pacific. The relationship between Australia in terms of a fossil fuel exporting country and Japan, which is a major industrial player, both in the Asia Pacific and emerging Asian economies, is pronounced. The thing we're most concerned about is the expansion of LNG, from exporting countries like the U.S., Australia and Canada, to countries in ‘emerging Asia’ such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. further locking them into dependency on gas imports. Gas companies are pursuing an unprecedented amount of LNG export capacity right now and gas has become the fastest growing source of emissions, replacing coal as of last year. That is the next major risk we see from a climate standpoint in our region, and it's something that we want to do everything we can to stop.
