Discover the evolving landscape of greenwashing in the funds management industry. Learn about recent penalties, civil litigation, and the crucial lessons for product issuers to minimise risks. Understand the implications of the Active Super case and the introduction of "greenruling."
Greenwashing needs no introduction. But while it’s not a new development, neither is it a fixed concept. Regulators are not taking a passive stance, having issued approximately $140,000 in greenwashing penalties within the funds management industry since 2022. This amount is set to rise into the tens of millions in the wake of several civil litigation cases where final approval on penalties remains outstanding.
For product issuers, the stakes are rising rapidly. Funds that have been subject to greenwash infringements or litigation now total more than $19 billion in assets under management (AUM) at the time of each case. Size is clearly not a factor, given that individual fund AUM has ranged from funds with $14 billion in assets to one with less than $1 million. The regulator has stated more is to come. So, what should issuers do to minimise the risk of getting claims wrong?
In 2023, we examined the concepts of greenwash, particularly the implications of its many forms:
Prior to the release of ASIC’s guidance on avoiding greenwash in mid-2022 (ASIC INFO 271), any regulatory or litigation actions were typically centred around a broader lack of market disclosures or failure to provide information such as climate change business risks.
Since the release of INFO 271, product issuers have logically placed it at the centre of their efforts to avoid infringement. However, even the best guidances remain subject to “interpretation failure” by users. Most greenwash cases to date have been centred around insufficient disclosures regarding negative screening, or in some cases overstating green outcomes.
Recent civil litigation outcomes in greenwashing cases are transforming the landscape. Although guidelines provide direction, a growing collection of case law adds complexity as regulators and courts try to apply existing laws to swiftly changing problems.
The Federal Court case involving Active Super should serve as a warning for fund managers universally. The core components of the case are not unprecedented. In short, if you make unequivocal statements, ASIC and the courts are going to hold you to them. A complicating factor arising from the case is the idea of the "reasonable person" test. This concept has been a long-standing element across different legal domains, basically holding that a responsible individual is expected to demonstrate "reasonable judgement and skill" when making decisions.
This is not in conflict with ASIC’s guidelines, which focus more on emphasising that claims must be founded on reasonable grounds. However, issuers must be careful to avoid falling into an expectation gap between themselves and consumers.
Why is this important? Broadly, Active Super had stated it would not make or hold investment in companies deriving revenue (based on certain thresholds) from select controversial industries, including gambling, oil tar sands, and coal mining. The Court determined that for several of the issues raised, the crux of the matter was not just the disclosure specifics, but how a reasonable person would interpret them. Effectively, the Court made several conclusions, including that:
Clearly, issuers cannot merely rely on technicalities and evidence to support reasonable grounds. They must also consider whether the information will be understood by a reasonable person.
When assessing the different forms of greenwash listed above, it’s entirely possible we can now add another form: “Greenruling” - placing too much reliance on rules and technicalities in disclosures, not what a realistic explanation should be. The courts have clearly signalled little patience for a rigid interpretation of what particular words mean to adhere strictly to the literal meaning of specific terms. It is vital for issuers to cautiously tread the line between what is considered reasonable grounds and how a reasonable individual would interpret those.
How should this be approached? We think taking a four-part approach can help. Firstly, issuers should still actively review standards and guidelines, as these will be foundational. Secondly, you need to review not just any precedents arrived at by the regulator in infringement cases, but also case law that emerges from the courts. Thirdly, you need a comprehensive education program that upskills boards, senior management and employees on the fundamentals and risks of greenwashing. And fourthly, you need a robust governance framework to oversee the whole system. Embedding relevant criteria into existing risk management procedures and controls should be considered essential, along with the addition of any other bespoke policies that are fit for purpose to an issuer’s needs.
Source: Zenith Investment Partners
Zenith sees the Active Super case as a critical learning opportunity for the industry. Greenwashing, and the Court’s responses to it, are not simple. They’ll be fluid and dynamic, not pedantically tied to industry standards and guidances.
In 2023, we suggested six questions to test claims for greenwash:
Clearly, in light of recent events, it’s the question of simplicity that’s easy to misjudge. We all recognise that claims must be supported by reasonable grounds, and reasonable grounds must be supported by evidence. But we also need to recognise that while evidence is part of the solution, it must not be at the expense of understanding.
Disclaimer: ©Zenith CW Pty Ltd ABN 20 639 121 403 (Chant West), Authorised Representative of Zenith Investment Partners Pty Ltd ABN 27 103 132 672, AFSL 226872 under AFS Representative Number 1280401, 2023. This website is only intended for use by Australian residents and is subject to use in accordance with Chant West’s Terms of Use and should be read with Chant West’s Financial Services Guide. Products, reports, ratings (Information) are based on data which may be sourced from a third party and may not contain all the information required to evaluate the nominated product providers, you are responsible for obtaining further information as required. To the extent that any Information provided is advice, it is General Advice (s766B Corporations Act). Individuals should seek their own independent financial advice and consider the appropriateness of any financial product in light of their own circumstances and needs before making any investment decision. Chant West has not taken into account the objectives, financial situation or needs of any specific person who may access or use the Information provided including target markets of financial products, where applicable. It is not a specific recommendation to purchase, sell or hold any product(s) and is subject to change at any time without prior notice. Individuals should consider the appropriateness of any advice in light of their own objectives, financial situations or needs and should obtain a copy of and consider any relevant PDS or offer document before making any decision. Information is provided in good faith and is believed to be accurate, however, no representation, warranty or undertaking is provided in relation to the accuracy or completeness of the Information. Information provided is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced, modified or distributed without the consent of the copyright owner. Except for any liability which cannot be excluded, Chant West does not accept any liability whether direct or indirect, arising from use of the Information. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Chant West ratings and research are prepared by Chant West and are not connected in any way to research and ratings prepared by any of our related entities.