Australian Ethical to challenge Macquarie on net zero financing
The superannuation investor says 2026 disclosures suggest Macquarie is abandoning its pledge to reduce fossil fuel financing
Macquarie Group, an Australian financial services heavyweight, will host its annual general meeting in Sydney tomorrow. On the agenda, is an investor resolution challenging the group on its net zero financing activities.
Australian Ethical, a superannuation investor, is amongst the co-filers. As a shareholder, Australian Ethical claims the group’s commitments to reduce fossil fuel financing appear to have taken a step back. At the AGM tomorrow, the fund plans on challenging the board – seeking clarity over where things stand.
NZI Transition and Climate Investment Conference | 22 October | London | Register here
Documents linked with the meeting reveal an underlying disagreement between investors and Macquire over the finer details of the group’s climate commitments.
Concerning retreat
Australian Ethical says the resolution was partly motivated by a discrepancy the fund noticed in Macquarie’s 2026 disclosures. In a statement, Australian Ethical notes that a long-standing commitment to align financing activities to a net zero by 2050 goal was missing this time around.
Consequently, the disclosures have raised questions about consistency and a potential backtracking of climate commitments.
“If Macquarie remains committed to aligning its financing with the global goal of net zero by 2050, or indeed the goals of the Paris Agreement, shareholders need to see that commitment being applied in practice, particularly when it comes to fossil fuel financing”, explains Amanda Richman, ethical stewardship lead at Australian Ethical.
The resolution cites three key concerns with the group’s latest disclosures. First, financing activities that are inconsistent with the Paris Agreement goals. Second, a reported decrease in green energy financing and lastly a ‘significant increase’ in fossil fuel financing.
“These developments signal a concerning retreat from MQG’s previous commitment [to net zero 2050]”, the resolution reads.
Investor concerns over Macquarie’s climate risk management have precedent. Last year, 35% of shareholders backed a resolution calling for improved reporting.
Short term gas
Documents show a key disagreement between the group and investors over the degree to which fossil fuels – particularly gas – have short-term viability within the context of the transition.
The resolution cites the case of the Beetaloo gas basin in Australia. Leading proponents – Beetaloo Energy and Tamboran Resources – are both Macquire clients, according to the resolution.
The resolution frames the financing as an example of unjustified exposure to long-term, new fossil fuel capacity that run contrary to Macquire’s own commitments.
“Capital allocation decisions made today will shape the resilience of the business for decades to come”, says Australian Ethical’s head of equities Nathan Parkins.
“Shareholders need sufficient information to assess whether Macquarie's financing decisions are consistent with its stated strategy and support long-term value creation”, he adds.
Board response
The board, in its response to the resolution, argues against this interpretation. According to meeting documents, the board claims that under all IEA 2021 scenarios – with the exception of the NZE scenario – additional oil and gas is ‘required’.
Noting the IEA NZE scenario’s policy preference against new oil and gas expansion, the board’s cites concerns with energy shortages that could follow as a result. The world, according to the board, is ‘well behind the decarbonisation pathway outlined in the 2021 NZE scenario’, implying higher energy shortage risks.
In addition, the board goes on to cite the recent conflict in the Middle East and a renewed Australian policy focus on domestic gas supply and energy security as contributing factors to its thinking on the matter – including the Beetaloo gas basin.
The board has recommended a vote against the resolution.
For the item to be put to vote, shareholders must first amend the company’s constitution to allow the resolution to enter the agenda – courtesy of Australian corporate governance rules that differ from US, UK or Canadian processes.
Both the constitutional amendment special resolution and the climate risk resolution are on the agenda at tomorrow’s meeting. With the latter’s vote dependent on whether a minimum of 75% of shareholders back the former.
