Oljefondet og etikken: Tomme fraser og overdreven frykt

Two conflicting views have emerged regarding the ethics of Oljefondet's investment strategies, with the fund asserting its compliance with OECD guidelines and Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg expressing concerns about the fund's overly restrictive ethical guidelines. Both statements present challenges in their own right. The first statement overstates the extent to which Oljefondet can adhere to these standards, while the second exaggerates the potential impact of the fund's ethical policies on the breadth of companies it invests in.

The oversight committee will deliver recommendations on new ethical guidelines for Oljefondet to the Finance Department and the Storting by October 15th. It is crucial to address these issues clearly. The focus must be on understanding the key international standards for corporate responsibility and ethical management that Oljefondet must follow.

These standards are clearly defined in the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (UNGP) and the OECD's guidelines, which Norway has committed to adhering to. When investing in companies involved in serious breaches of human rights or international humanitarian law, such as those facilitating war crimes, investors are directly responsible for mitigating and preventing harm.

If this does not prove feasible and the risk involves severe breaches or potential harm, the investment should be reconsidered. If an investor cannot sell out due to various reasons and the risk of severe human rights breaches persists, they cannot remain passive. The UNGP and OECD guidelines expect investors to escalate their involvement in the company and be transparent about how negative consequences are addressed.

In the context of weapons conflict and occupation, investors must act with particular scrupulousness and intensified efforts. To follow the UNGP and OECD guidelines, Oljefondet must prioritize the most severe human rights breaches it is associated with. How this is communicated must be made clear. Solely suspending holdings is insufficient.

Evaluating divestment when all other efforts have been exhausted is part of what is expected. Simply stating intentions to observe and exclude is not enough. The remaining risks, despite being based on sound principles, are not applicable to less substantial investments. Following UNGP and OECD guidelines is not possible if recommendations for observation and exclusion are set aside and remaining risk-based sales primarily target smaller holdings.

Therefore, Oljefondet cannot fully comply with UNGP and OECD guidelines unless it addresses these problems.