10.18 The investment of public funds in tobacco—the case for divestment

Growth of the tobacco market will inevitably lead to more deaths, and investment in tobacco companies is an important facilitator of growth.¹ Pension funds (known as ‘superannuation funds’ in Australia) can positively and significantly affect share prices of the companies in which they invest, and such funds are major investors in stock markets in Australia and globally.² Australian government policies require all employed Australians to contribute to superannuation funds, therefore most Australians have some investment in the share market.² A 2018 analysis of Australian funds revealed tobacco exposure ranging from 0.108 per cent to 1.28 per cent of total assets, equating to at least AU$2.484 billion (and potentially 10 times that amount) of Australian workers’ money invested in tobacco companies.³

Throughout the 1990s, tobacco control advocates increasingly questioned the investment by private and especially public sector superannuation funds in tobacco company stocks, and called for public institutions to divest such stocks. These calls occurred in the context of growing interest in socially responsible investment, as well as mounting litigation against major tobacco companies, a serious consideration for funds managers and investors.^4,5 Analyses of tobacco company documents have highlighted the industry’s concerns that a divestment movement would be both a direct threat to its capital base and a risk in terms of broader social acceptability, and revealed industry efforts to obstruct such a movement. In the US, Philip Morris succeeded in stymying divestment at medically prestigious universities,⁶ and in combatting divestment by several financially significant government funds.⁵

The mid-2000s saw the beginning of divestment in tobacco stocks in pension funds internationally. In 2007, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund became the first Sovereign Wealth Fund in the world to exclude investment in tobacco.⁷ Elsewhere, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund—one of the largest in the world—ceased investing in tobacco in 2010. The country’s finance minister stressed the importance of the fund’s ethical guidelines reflecting ‘at all times what can be considered to be the commonly held values of the owners of the fund’ (i.e. the Norwegian people).⁸ In 2012, First State Super became the first mainstream Australian superannuation fund to implement a tobacco-free investment policy.  In 2013, the Australian Government’s Future Fund similarly divested, and as at June 2026, there were 62 Australian Signatories to Tobacco Free Portfolios’ ‘The Pledge’—a tobacco-free finance pledge taken by financial institutions who commit to tobacco-free finance policies. Medibank (Australia’s largest private health insurer), as well as many other superannuation funds, banks, insurers and asset managers, have also excluded investment in tobacco.⁹ See 10.18.1 below for a comprehensive overview of Tobacco Free Portfolios.

Arguments against and for divestment:

Fiduciary duty

Some commentators argue that fiduciary duty—the legal obligation of those who manage superannuation funds to invest in the best interest of members—is a barrier to moving to tobacco-free investments. Investments in tobacco stocks are most frequently justified on the grounds that pension funds’ fiduciary duty (i.e. legal obligations to pension fund members) requires them to maximise returns, without consideration of ethical issues.¹⁰ Up until recently in Australia, superannuation funds were governed primarily by the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (SIS Act). The Act stated that superannuation funds must act ‘in the best interests of the beneficiaries’, which had conventionally been interpreted to mean their best financial interests. However, some public health experts argued that this interpretation may be overly simplistic, and that ethical concerns could be accommodated without compromising the performance of the fund.¹⁰

‘Best Financial Interests Duty: Australia’

The Best Financial Interests Duty (BFID) was introduced as part of the Australian Government’s Your Future, Your Super (YFYS) reforms. From 1 July 2021, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) was amended to require trustees of registrable superannuation entities, trustees of self-managed superannuation funds and directors of corporate trustees to perform their duties and exercise their powers in the best financial interests of beneficiaries.¹¹ The reform changed the wording of the existing covenant from ‘best interests’ to ‘best financial interests’, with the explanatory materials stating that the purpose was to clarify that the financial interests of members, rather than non-financial interests, must be the determinative consideration.

The YFYS package also reversed the evidential burden of proof in civil penalty proceedings brought by the regulator in relation to the duty. In practical terms, this means that trustees must be able to point to evidence showing a reasonable possibility that they have acted in members’ best financial interests. The explanatory materials emphasise the need for strong systems, clear records and, where appropriate, quantifiable metrics capable of supporting expenditure and investment decisions. The amendments were intended to sharpen accountability for both routine operational spending and larger strategic investment decisions.

Treasury’s 2023 review of YFYS found that BFID had generated substantial uncertainty in practice. Stakeholders reported that the combination of the reverse evidential burden and the absence of a materiality threshold had increased legal and compliance costs. Some argued the previous ‘best interests’ duty should be restored, while others claimed the new, sharper focus on financial outcomes had improved trustee governance. The summary of stakeholder feedback provided by Treasury recorded broad interest in additional guidance and in clarifying that the reverse onus applies only in civil proceedings brought by the regulator, not more generally.¹²

For tobacco-free finance, the practical implication is not that exclusions are barred, but that they must be justified in financially rigorous terms. Trustees are on firmer ground where a tobacco exclusion can be framed as a prudent response to financially material risks such as long-run underperformance, litigation exposure, tightening regulation, governance concerns, reputational harm and the prospect of further endgame-style policy intervention. The new standards require tobacco-free policies to be not simply ethically attractive, but also defensible, evidence-based and aligned with the long-term financial interests of members. Although trustees may be more cautious about policies that can be characterised as ideological or values driven, tobacco is in fact particularly well suited to a financially grounded exclusion case. Unlike many other sectors, there is no safe level of tobacco use, engagement with the industry cannot change the inherent harmfulness of the core product, the industry is subject to a unique global treaty framework, and its long-term commercial outlook is increasingly constrained by regulation, litigation and shifting social norms.

Consideration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics

The relationship between Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investing and fiduciary duty has evolved significantly. The Fiduciary Duty in the 21st Century report of the United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative (UNEP FI), together with the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and The Generation Foundation, challenged commonly held assumptions that ESG issues are unrelated to fiduciary obligations.¹³ They advocated that where ESG factors are financially material, fiduciaries should take them into account. They concluded that investors who fail to incorporate financially material ESG issues are increasingly exposed to legal challenge and that modern fiduciary duties require investors to consider such factors in a manner consistent with the time horizon of their obligations.

The UNEP FI’s work also goes further than the proposition that ESG is ‘allowed’. Instead, it explains why fiduciaries should understand and incorporate the sustainability preferences of beneficiaries, act as active owners, support the stability and resilience of the financial system and disclose clearly how such considerations are reflected in investment practices. For tobacco-free finance, this is highly relevant as tobacco presents not only profound social harm, but also a financially material mix of regulatory, legal, governance and system-level risk. Considering these factors, excluding tobacco can be understood not as a departure from fiduciary duty, but as an increasingly coherent expression of this obligation.

Investing in tobacco is socially irresponsible and against the public interest

An argument that is sometimes raised in favour of tobacco investment is that tobacco is a “legal product”, and therefore a legitimate investment.³ Sale of tobacco products is certainly regulated, however whether its sale is lawful is a complex issue, examination of which raises many troubling questions. Tobacco is a unique product in that it is addictive and kills a very high proportion—as many as two-thirds—of its long-term users when used as intended.¹⁴ The WHO has highlighted the irreconcilable differences between what is in the interests of the tobacco industry and what will benefit public health.¹⁵ People who smoke lose an average of 10 to 12 years of life, and many lose several decades.¹⁶ The tobacco industry has used its enormous resources for decades to aggressively undermine tobacco control strategies,¹⁷ including marketing its products in ways that promote uptake among children.¹⁸ As high-income countries have implemented restrictions on marketing, industry efforts have shifted to developing countries.¹⁸ The significant contribution of tobacco use to poverty and disease worldwide has led to suggestions that there is a moral imperative not to benefit financially from tobacco holdings, and that investment in tobacco is inconsistent with public values.¹⁹ It may also be unsound social policy to derive public income from tobacco,⁴ when its use leads to lost productivity and high healthcare costs, as well as higher levels of financial stress for individuals and families (see Section 17.2).

Investing in tobacco supports child labour

Apart from effects on health and economic wellbeing, additional concerns have been raised about involvement of the tobacco industry in unethical labour practices.²⁰ It is estimated that 33 million people are engaged in tobacco growing and processing worldwide, of which 1.3 million are estimated to be children.²¹ In a report issued in March 2017, the International Labor Organisation (ILO) stated that ‘in tobacco growing communities, child labour is rampant’.²² In November 2018, the ILO announced that it will no longer rely on tobacco industry funding for its projects to end child labour. ‘The ILO decision sends a strong message that the tobacco industry can no longer exploit this United Nations’ agency to promote its discredited charity. The tobacco industry’s handouts on child labour have not solved the more fundamental problems that force children to the fields and trap farmers in poverty, such as low tobacco leaf prices and harmful working conditions,’ said Dr. Ulysses Dorotheo, executive director of the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance.²³ A 2021 report by STOP labelled the tobacco industry’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) in child labour ‘an inherent contradiction’. Foundations financed by the tobacco industry such as Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco Growing (ECLT) are a violation of tobacco sponsorship and divert attention away from the true impact of child labour in tobacco production, while also obscuring genuine solutions, undermining diversification strategies, drowning out the voices of stakeholders and allowing the tobacco industry to escape culpability.²¹ For more on tobacco farming and child labour see Section 10.14.2.

Investing in tobacco negatively impacts the environment

Investing in tobacco supports the negative environmental impacts of tobacco production, including land clearing and deforestation, agrochemical use, water consumption, genetic modification of tobacco leaf, and contribution to climate change.^24,25 It also supports environmental harms caused by tobacco product waste. Cigarette butts are among the most collected single items of rubbish by environmental organisations in Australia and globally.²⁶ See Section 10.15 for detailed information on the environmental impact of tobacco production, and Section 10.16 for information on the environmental impact of tobacco use.

Legal and policy obligations supporting divestment:

Investing in tobacco contravenes Australia’s obligations under the FCTC

Australia became a Party to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) on February 27, 2005. Article 5.3 states, ‘Government institutions and their bodies should not have any financial interest in the tobacco industry, unless they are responsible for managing a Party’s ownership interest in a State-owned tobacco industry’ (4.7). Guidelines developed to assist Parties with implementation of Article recognise the ‘fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health policy interests’ and provide guidance on how best to protect tobacco control policies from tobacco industry interference. The Article 5.3 Guidelines recommend that Parties:

• Raise awareness about the addictive and harmful nature of tobacco products and about tobacco industry interference with Parties’ tobacco control policies.
• Establish measures to limit interactions with the tobacco industry and ensure the transparency of those interactions that occur.
• Reject partnerships and non-binding or non-enforceable agreements with the tobacco industry.
• Avoid conflicts of interest for government officials and employees.
• Require that information provided by the tobacco industry be transparent and accurate.
• Denormalise and, to the extent possible, regulate activities described as ‘socially responsible’ by the tobacco industry, including but not limited to activities described as ‘corporate social responsibility’.
• Do not give preferential treatment to the tobacco industry.²⁷

Recommendation 7.2 states specifically that ‘Parties that do not have a State-owned tobacco industry should not invest in the tobacco industry and related ventures’,²⁷ which Parties should consider in relation to pension funds. These considerations could form part of a broader policy on contact with the tobacco industry, or it may be preferable to treat the issue of pensions separately, given the complexity of fiduciary duties.²⁸ Norway, for example, has addressed the Article 5.3 recommendation to avoid conflicts of interest by announcing in 2010 that it would be divesting government pension funds from the tobacco industry.⁸

The Australian National Tobacco Strategy 2022–30,²⁹ agreed to by all nine Australian Federal, state and territory governments, commits them to developing policies and regulatory options to implement Article 5.3,²⁷ and to prevent tobacco industry interference in public health policies.²⁹ Thus, investing in tobacco undermines both international and domestic obligations.

Financial arguments for divestment:

Opponents have previously argued that investing in tobacco stocks is sound fiscal policy; however advocates have ‘flipped’ these arguments by highlighting the uncertainty of the industry’s finances in the face of mounting legal battles and tighter regulations.^4,30  There does not appear to have been a financial trade-off for funds that have divested from tobacco. Replacing tobacco with investments that have similar characteristics (for example, other ‘defensive stocks’ like healthcare, food and beverage) has allowed funds to achieve comparable returns.³¹ Historically, tobacco has been viewed as a sound investment; one that was low risk and high profit. However, the sector's financial performance has deteriorated over time; for example, in 2018 tobacco was the worst performing sector on the UK market, excluding dividends, among the FTSE All-Share Index.³²

Research has examined whether tobacco stocks add genuine value to investment portfolios. A scenario analysis concluded that tobacco firms are unlikely to sustain their historically superior performance,³³ and another report found that index portfolios excluding tobacco did not underperform tobacco-inclusive benchmarks over the 20-year period from 1998 to 2018.³⁴ Furthermore, portfolios applying strict tobacco exclusions outperformed the market over a six-year study period from 2012 to 2018.³⁴ A 2024 study³⁵ examining shares from nine major tobacco companies found that, from 2016 to 2023, those stocks substantially underperformed the broader market, suggesting that portfolios excluding tobacco would likely have outperformed comparable portfolios that retained tobacco holdings during this period.

Taken together, these findings point to diminished investor confidence, weakening financial performance, and negative market sentiment towards the tobacco industry. Given the uncertain long-term outlook for tobacco and an increasingly hostile regulatory and commercial environment, the financial rationale for including tobacco stocks in a portfolio is not readily apparent.³⁶

In June 2020, USS Investment Management—the largest UK pension plan with over US$81B AUM (as of late 2019)—divested from tobacco following a detailed review of the long-term financial factors associated with investing in certain sectors such as tobacco. They concluded that the traditional financial models used by the market as a whole to predict the future performance in tobacco had not taken specific risks into account. These included changing political and regulatory attitudes and increased regulation that USS Investment Management consider will damage the prospects of businesses involved in these sectors in the years to come.³⁷

Endgame policies such as generational tobacco bans are gaining legislative traction globally, with the United Kingdom having passed such legislation into law in 2026. France and several Canadian provinces are similarly exploring comparable measures. See Section 5.11.2.2 Tobacco Free Generation policy.

10.18.1 Tobacco Free Portfolios

Tobacco Free Portfolios was founded in 2010 by Australian oncologist Dr Bronwyn King AO, after she discovered that her compulsory superannuation savings were invested in tobacco companies. What began as an effort to persuade her own fund and then other Australian superannuation funds to go tobacco-free has since developed into a global movement engaging banks, insurers, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, asset managers and rating agencies across more than twenty countries.

Tobacco Free Portfolios assists institutions not only by making the moral case, but by helping them build the financial evidence base, governance processes and decision record necessary to satisfy contemporary fiduciary expectations. The organisation’s flagship initiative, the Tobacco-Free Finance Pledge,³⁸ was launched at United Nations Headquarters in 2018. In June 2026, the Pledge reports 216 signatories headquartered in 21 countries, representing more than US $18 trillion in assets under management, US $2.6 trillion corporate loan book and US$268.5 billion gross premiums. In the Australian context, 62 Australian organisations have signed the Pledge representing over 28% of signatories, underlining Australia’s outsized role in the global tobacco-free finance movement.

Australia’s leadership in tobacco industry divestment is significant because the superannuation sector is itself exceptionally large. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) reported³⁹ total Australian superannuation assets of A$4,437.9 billion as at March 2026. On current international comparisons,⁴⁰ Australia has the world’s fourth-largest pension pool despite having only the world’s 55th-largest population. Australia is projected to overtake the United Kingdom and Canada in the early 2030s to become the second-largest pension market globally. Australia’s retirement savings pool already exceeds any single sovereign wealth fund, including that of Norway. Given this context, tobacco-free finance in Australia should not be considered ‘niche’ or ‘ethics-washing’. Instead, it can be viewed as a material, world-leading reallocation of capital from one of the most harmful industries in the world which strongly aligns with Australia’s leadership in tobacco control.

Tobacco Free Portfolios has helped establish tobacco exclusion as a foundational step in responsible and sustainable finance globally. This shift has significance in Australia, where compulsory superannuation means the investment decisions of funds affect the retirement savings of most working Australians. The impact of Australian exclusions therefore lies not only in the amount of capital involved, but also in the signal sent to global markets that tobacco is inconsistent with long-term value creation, good governance and public health.

Global interest in divestment from the tobacco industry and the work of Tobacco Free Portfolios has built support for tobacco control and capital reallocation among sectors not traditionally engaged in public health, including legal reformers, institutional investors, trustees, regulators and finance professionals, who are increasingly recognising that there is no legitimate place for tobacco in a healthy financial future.

Related reading

Test your knowledge

References 

1. Cancer Research UK, Preventing Lung Cancer: Isolating the Tobacco Industry.  London: Cancer Research UK; 2002.

2. Huynh W, Mallik G, and Hettihewa S. The impact of macroeconomic variables, demographic structure and compulsory superannuation on share prices: the case of Australia. Journal of International Business Studies, 2006; 37(5):687–98. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400220

3. King B, Payne C, and Stone E. Tobacco-Free Investment: Harnessing the Power of the Finance Industry in Comprehensive Tobacco Control. QUT Law Review, 2018; 17(2):161–74. Available from: http://lr.law.qut.edu.au/article/view/699

4. Wander N and Malone RE. Keeping public institutions invested in tobacco. Journal of Business Ethics, 2007; 73(2):161–76. Available from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-006-9188-0

5. Wander N and Malone RE. Fiscal versus social responsibility: how Philip Morris shaped the public funds divestment debate. Tobacco Control, 2006; 15(3):231–41. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2596576/

6. Wander N and Malone RE. Selling off or selling out? Medical schools and ethical leadership in tobacco stock divestment. Academic Medicine, 2004; 79(11):1017–26. Available from: http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Abstract/2004/11000/Selling_Off_or_Selling_Out__Medical_Schools_and.2.aspx

7. New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Exclusions. 2007. Available from: https://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/how-we-invest-responsible-investment/exclusions

8. Ward A. Norway fund shuns tobacco companies. Financial Times, 2010. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/9ef17b66-052a-11df-a85e-00144feabdc0

9. Davey M. Medibank moves $170m to tobacco-free investment fund The Guardian, 2016. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/24/medibank-moves-170m-to-tobacco-free-investment-fund

10. Action on Smoking and Health. Local authority pension funds and investments in the tobacco industry.  2012. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://cabinet.leicester.gov.uk/documents/s57503/Pension%20Investments%20-%20Briefing%20Paper%20by%20ASH.pdf.

11. Frydenberg J. Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Act 2021; Revised Explanatory Memorandum. Australian Taxation Office, 2021. Available from: https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/print?DocID=NEM/EM202119/NAT/ATO/00005&PiT=99991231235958

12. The Australian Government the Treasury. Your Future, Your Super Review: Summary of issues.  2023. Available from: https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-04/c2022-313936-yfys-review.pdf.

13. No author listed. Fiduciary Duty in the 21st Century. UN Environment Programme: Finance Initiative. Available from: https://www.unepfi.org/investment/history/fiduciary-duty/

14. Banks E, Joshy G, Weber MF, Liu B, Grenfell R, et al. Tobacco smoking and all-cause mortality in a large Australian cohort study: findings from a mature epidemic with current low smoking prevalence. BMC Medicine, 2015; 13:38. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25857449

15. World Health Organization. WHO and tobacco control partners urge countries not to partner or work with the tobacco industry. WHO, 2023. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/03-05-2023-who-and-tobacco-control-partners-urge-countries-not-to-partner-or-work-with-the-tobacco-industry

16. Peto R, Lopez AD, Pan H, Boreham J, and Thun M. Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950 - 2020. 2015. Available from: http://gas.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/tobacco/contents.htm

17. World Health Organization. Tobacco industry interference with tobacco control. World Health Organization, Geneva: WHO, 2009. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/70894.

18. World Health Organization. 3 out of every 4 children are exposed to tobacco advertising. 28 May 2013. Available from: https://www.who.int/southeastasia/news/detail/28-05-2013-3-out-of-every-4-children-are-exposed-to-tobacco-advertising

19. No authors listed. Australia pension fund reviewing tobacco stake. Medical Xpress, 2012. Available from: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-10-australia-pension-fund-tobacco-stake.html

20. Graen L. Tobacco industry confronted with child labour. Blog Tobacco Control, 2015. Available from: https://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2015/01/27/tobacco-industry-confronted-with-child-labour/

21. STOP (Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products). The Tobacco Industry: A Hindrance to the Elimination of Child Labor. Expose Tobacco, 2021. Available from: https://files.ggtc.world/uploads/2021-06-11/17-45-16-623415/CHILD%20LABOUR%20FS.pdf

22. International Labour Office. ILO cooperation with the tobacco industry in the pursuit of the Organization’s social mandate Governing Body, 2017. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_545944.pdf

23. Lei Ravelo J. After 3 deferments, ILO finally decides on tobacco industry-funded projects. Devex, 2018. Available from: https://www.devex.com/news/after-3-deferments-ilo-finally-decides-on-tobacco-industry-funded-projects-93820

24. Zafeiridou M, Hopkinson NS, and Voulvoulis N. Cigarette Smoking: An Assessment of Tobacco's Global Environmental Footprint Across Its Entire Supply Chain. Environ Sci Technol, 2018; 52(15):8087–94. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29968460

25. Novotny TE, Bialous SA, Burt L, Curtis C, da Costa VL, et al. The environmental and health impacts of tobacco agriculture, cigarette manufacture and consumption. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2015; 93(12):877–80. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26668440

26. Clean Up Australia. Litter Report FY24.  2025. Available from: https://irp.cdn-website.com/ed061800/files/uploaded/CleanUpAustralia_LitterReport_FY24_FINAL.pdf.

27. World Health Organization. Guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 2013. Available from: https://fctc.who.int/publications/m/item/guidelines-for-implementation-of-article-5.3

28. Action on Smoking and Health, Developing Policy on Contact with the Tobacco Industry.   2015. Available from: https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/developing-a-policy-on-contact-with-the-tobacco-industry.

29. Australian Government. National Tobacco Strategy 2022-2030. Canberra: Department of Health, 2023. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-tobacco-strategy-2023-2030?language=en.

30. Schueth S. Tobacco: No More Excuses for Pension Funds. Pensions & Investments, 1997. Available from: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/documents/viewer/?iid=fyjl0067&id=fyjl0067&q=null%2Call%2Ccontains%2CSchueth+S.+Tobacco%3A+No+more+excuses+for+pension+funds.+Pensions+&db-set=documents&industry=all-industries&sort=relevance&pg=1&npp=20&rtool=metadata

31. Noble G. Turning their backs on tobacco. Superfunds, October 2013. Available from: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=651932954396777;res=IELBUS

32. Faurschou J. Tobacco shares hardest hit in 2018. Investors Chronicle, 2018. Available from: https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/shares/2018/12/12/tobacco-shares-hardest-hit-in-2018/

33. Bauer R. The future of tobacco stocks: a scenario analysis. Maastricht University, 2018. Available from: https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/32043868/the_future_of_tobacco_stocks_a_scenario_analysis_final_.pdf.

34. Genus. The Tobacco Report: How divesting from tobacco affected returns over 20 years Genus Fossil Free Investing, 2019. Available from: https://tobaccofreeportfolios.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Genus-Report.pdf.

35. Evans T, Sayed A, and Van Walbeek C. Evaluating the financial case for investing in, or divesting from, tobacco investments. Tobacco Control, 2024. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39477542

36. van Walbeek C and Evans T. Tobacco isn’t a good investment – study shows a decline in stock prices since 2016. The Conversation, 2024. Available from: https://theconversation.com/tobacco-isnt-a-good-investment-study-shows-a-decline-in-stock-prices-since-2016-242032

37. No author listed. USS to make first divestments after long-term investment review. USS, 2020. Available from: https://www.uss.co.uk/news-and-views/latest-news/2020/06/06012020_uss-to-make-first-divestments-after-long-term-investment-review

38. Tobacco Free Portfolios. The Pledge. The Tobacco-Free Finance Pledge, 2026. Available from: https://tobaccofreeportfolios.org/the-pledge/

39. APRA. APRA releases superannuation statistics for March 2026. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, 2026. Available from: https://www.apra.gov.au/news-and-publications/apra-releases-superannuation-statistics-for-march-2026

40. No author listed. Australians’ super savings on track to become second largest globally by the early 2030s. Super Members Council, 2025. Available from: https://smcaustralia.com/media/australians-super-savings-on-track-to-become-second-largest-globally-by-the-early-2030s/