Cbus David Atkin said that while a fund had to maximise the return to members, as its bottom line, there were a number of dimensions to the goal. “Choice of fund creates its own dynamics,” he said. “We need to have individual relationships with members, who are free to leave. Our members strongly identify with the fund and are very proud of it. Over 20 years it has delivered about 10 per cent a year after fees and tax. So they’ve done well. “We also own a property company. Property makes up 15 per cent of our asset allocation and half of that is our own company. Having their fund investing back into their industry as a developer is a powerful part of our communications. “[Cbus’ property] investments will return 15-20 per cent this year, so it’s very helpful when total fund returns are negative.”

The other major area where super funds have already made big strides in co-operation is in the governance of their shareholdings in big listed companies. The Australian Council of Super Investors (ACSI), a governance organisation formed by a group of large super funds in 2001 and which currently has 42 members, has taken public action against several companies, such as News Corporation, over alleged suppression of minority interests.

However, most of ACSI’s activities involve providing information about corporate actions and voting. Law suits are rare. In the US, where class actions are much more common, Australians have in the past few years been joining in group actions against big companies, including the Enron compensation case. Robert Monks, a long-term corporate activist and founder of several governance bodies including Governance for Owners, told Global Dialogue that in most countries, such as the US, litigation was “the only economically rational strategy for collective action by owners”. He said: “To get anything done, you have to find ingenious ways to litigate. It is up to us to insist that the accounting systems of companies internalise the externalities.” By that he meant that the clear bottom line of company reports needs to reflect the full costs and benefits to the community – a “single bottom line not a triple bottom line”. “At the end of the day, the only thing that has produced results is litigation,” he said.

Monks said that if there was to be a genuine sustainability in corporate functioning, it will be because of the informed involvement of ownership – the shareholders. “It won’t come from directors, nor management,” he said. “It won’t come from government. We will need to harmonise the differing, often conflicting, characteristics of the ownership of securities on a global basis in order to realistically rely on shareholders to assure responsible corporate governance.”