Fondets etiske flaggskip kan rigges om til en tannløs intern rådgivingsgruppe

The Norwegian pension fund has long been a beacon for responsible investing, showing that it is possible to manage vast sums without compromising human rights, international law, or the environment. The foundation of this model is the ethical guidelines issued by the Storting, which set boundaries for how Norwegian taxpayers are willing to invest their collective savings.

An independent ethics council, with a clear mandate, has been tasked with assessing the risk of violating these guidelines and advising on exclusion or monitoring of companies where the risk of future norm violations is too high. The bank then makes the final decisions on exclusion, monitoring, or other ownership follow-up of these companies.

The council's evaluations and the bank's decisions have been made public, contributing to consistent, predictable, thorough, and transparent practice of ethical guidelines and thus de-politicizing decisions on excluding individual companies.

However, the Gjedrem Committee is proposing significant changes to the core of this work. The proposed resolution would dramatically weaken the fund's ethical compass by permanently disbanding the ethics council, removing its authority to make independent recommendations for exclusion or monitoring of companies. The council would be reduced to a mere advisory role for the bank's stakeholder dialogues.

The committee also grants the bank a strengthened mandate to override the fund's ethical obligations in favor of its own financial interests. This raises the risk that the ethics council may become a rubber stamp for legitimizing others' decisions, rather than providing independent judgment on ethical matters. Additionally, openness regarding the reasons for exclusions has been a key strength, making the fund's approach equal and transparent.

However, the Gjedrem Committee seeks to hide this process behind closed doors and increasing exemptions from public scrutiny, ostensibly to protect Norway from geopolitical discomfort and pressure from major powers. Nevertheless, ethics that bend when the storm comes is no longer ethics at all, but can be interpreted as political opportunism.

Both of these pillars would have far-reaching consequences for the ethical practice of the pension fund. Most importantly, the ethical normative force would be eroded. Furthermore, the committee goes so far as to suggest a course where ethics are secondary to financial considerations, such as repeatedly stating that exclusion and public reporting are considered against financial or political costs.

If the Gjedrem Committee's proposals are adopted, the Oljefond's (Oil Fund) DNA would be fundamentally altered. No longer would it be able to make principled decisions based solely on ethical judgment; instead, it would become an instrument that can be molded to fit shifting geopolitical interests. As the individual was appointed to lead an independent council responsible for upholding and operationalizing a clear ethical mandate on behalf of the Norwegian people, the prospect of the fund's ethical compass being transformed into a toothless internal advisory group is deeply concerning.

The committee's proposals must be carefully considered, as they would fundamentally undermine the fund's commitment to ethical investing.