Audit Lowe Down – Greenwashing Crackdown: Recent Cases Against Mercer and Vanguard

Blog Layout

Audit Lowe Down – Greenwashing Crackdown: Recent Cases Against Mercer and Vanguard

Lowe Lippmann Chartered Accountants

Greenwashing is now a word that most of us are familiar with and although there are different definitions – the general theme is where an entity is making statements about their ‘greenness’ which are not matched by their actions.

ASIC have been actively pursuing a number of entities in their area and two of these actions have now been resolved through the court process.

In cases against two major investment companies, where ASIC alleged misleading claims about the sustainability of certain investment products, significant penalties have been imposed by the courts:

$11.3 million for Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Ltd who admitted making misleading statements about the sustainable nature and characteristics of some of its superannuation investment options.
$12.9 million for Vanguard Investments Australia who admitted to misleading investors that certain funds would be screened to exclude bond issuers with significant business activities in certain industries, including fossil fuels, when this was not always the case.

The lesson from these cases is clear: entities must have solid evidence to back up claims about their sustainability practices—whether related to carbon emissions, diversity, modern slavery, or other environmental and social commitments. Misleading statements on platforms such as websites, annual reports, and social media are being flagged, and enforcement actions are being taken to address these breaches, which can significantly erode consumer trust.

Please do not hesitate to contact your Lowe Lippmann Relationship Partner if you wish to discuss any of these matters further.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

< Older Post Newer Post >

Tax Alert - Will credit card surcharges be banned?

February 19, 2025

Will credit card surcharges be banned? If credit card surcharges are banned in other countries, why not Australia? This alert looks at the surcharge debate and the payment system complexity that has brought us to this point. In the United Kingdom, consumer credit and debit card surcharges have been banned since 2018. In Europe, all except American Express and Diners Club consumer surcharges are banned. And in Australia, there is a push to follow suit. But is the issue as simple as it seems?

Tax Alert - Is there a problem paying your super when you die?

February 17, 2025

Is there a problem paying your super when you die? The Government has announced its intention to introduce mandatory standards for large superannuation funds to, amongst other things, deliver timely and compassionate handling of death benefits. Do we have a problem with paying out super when a member dies? The value of superannuation in Australia is now around $4.1 trillion. When you die, your super does not automatically form part of your estate but instead, is paid to your eligible beneficiaries by the fund trustee according to the fund rules, superannuation law, and any death benefit nomination you made. Complaints to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority ( AFCA ) about the handling of death benefits surged sevenfold between 2021 and 2023. The critical issue was delays in payments. While most super death benefits are paid within 3 months, for others it can take well over a year. The super laws do not specify a time period only that super needs to be paid to beneficiaries “as soon as practicable” after the death of the member.

Tax Alert - Why the ATO is targeting babyboomer wealth

February 13, 2025

Why the ATO is targeting babyboomer wealth “Succession planning, and the tax risks associated with it, is our number one focus in 2025. In recent years we’ve observed an increase in reorganisations that appear to be connected to succession planning.” ATO Private Wealth Deputy Commissioner Louise Clarke The Australian Taxation Office ( ATO ) thinks that wealthy babyboomer Australians, particularly those with successful family-controlled businesses, are planning and structuring to dispose of assets in a way in which the tax outcomes might not be in accord with the ATO’s expectations. If you are within the ATO’s Top 500 (Australia's largest and wealthiest private groups) or Next 5,000 (Australian residents who, together with their associates, control a net wealth of over $50 million) programs, expect the ATO to be paying close attention to how money flows through the entities you control. A critical issue for many business owners is how to effectively (and compliantly) benefit from a successful business. In many cases, the owners have spent years building the business and the business has become not only a substantial asset, but a lucrative source of income either through salary and wages, dividends, or through the sale of shares or assets. Generally, under tax law, you can legitimately structure assets if there is a good reason to do so - like for asset protection, but if you tip across the line and the only viable reason for a structure is to reduce tax, then you risk the ATO taking a very close look at your operations or worse, denying any tax benefits under the general anti-avoidance rules in Part IVA of the tax rules, designed to combat “blatant, artificial or contrived” tax avoidance activities. “We’re seeing that succession planning behaviour is primarily done by group heads who are approaching retirement. They typically own groups that family members are a part of, and wealth is transferred to the next generation to keep it within the family (via trusts and other means),” ATO Private Wealth Deputy Commissioner Louise Clarke said in a recent update.