By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Norway has temporarily suspended its ethical investing rules, according to Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg, to prevent its $2.1 trillion oil fund from being forced to divest from major tech companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet due to their work for the Israeli government. The decision follows US concerns and the fund’s prior divestment from Caterpillar. Stoltenberg expressed worries that such divestments could undermine the fund’s diversified investment strategy and its importance to Norway’s budget, especially as the ethics council was set to review the tech companies and others on a UN blacklist. The move, supported by opposition parties, has drawn criticism from left-wing politicians who believe it prioritizes large corporations and US interests over ethical considerations.
Read the original article here
Norway, custodian of a colossal $2.1 trillion oil fund, is currently navigating a complex ethical tightrope walk. The government is suspending, or at least significantly revising, certain ethical guidelines that dictate the fund’s investments, and the reason for this decision points directly to the fund’s significant stakes in major Big Tech companies.
The situation is nuanced. The initial response might be a cynical eye roll: “Suspend ethics rules to make more money? Did they even have real ethics rules to begin with?” Indeed, the situation is more intricate than a simple betrayal of principles. There are questions of priorities and consequences, and even those critical of the move acknowledge the challenges Norway faces. The former head of NATO and current Finance Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, has stated that they are facing these tough questions and that the current guidelines need to be reevaluated.
One of the core concerns driving the review of ethical guidelines revolves around the impact of divestment. The fund’s holdings in companies like Google and Microsoft are substantial. Selling those shares, even for ethical reasons, could significantly hurt the Norwegian welfare state, which relies heavily on the fund’s returns for its annual budget. The potential harm to social programs, safety nets, and the citizens who rely on them is a critical factor in this delicate calculus.
Furthermore, divesting from these tech giants won’t necessarily change their behavior. Big Tech is involved in a vast web of contracts and operations, many of which are essential, if not ethically neutral, in nature. The argument here is that simply pulling out of these investments would not halt the companies’ potentially problematic actions. It would potentially do more harm than good, as these companies provide crucial services.
One of the key issues involves the complexities of ethical investing in an interconnected world. The Norwegian fund’s ethical guidelines, as they currently stand, may clash with broader economic and geopolitical realities. The fund’s role as a major player in global markets carries considerable influence. Divestment decisions, intended to express moral disapproval, can cause substantial economic ripples that reverberate across the global markets.
However, the ethics rules themselves seem to be hypocritical. Norway’s current guidelines prevent investment in companies that derive revenue from coal, and they do not allow investment in companies that develop nuclear weapons. However, the fund has invested heavily in the defense industry, specifically in companies like Lockheed Martin that make components for nuclear weapons. In fact, it continues to purchase arms from companies that have contracts with countries that violate human rights.
Another point of contention is how Norway’s ethical standards are being perceived on a global scale. The Norwegian fund’s divestment decisions are seen by many countries and multinational organizations as a form of political action. The fund’s decisions to invest or divest can disrupt global markets and potentially damage other countries’ economies, causing companies to alter their behavior to appease the fund.
It is worth noting that Norway has faced intense pressure from across the globe to soften its ethical constraints. The government is now grappling with the fact that these constraints create political capital that it must expend at the expense of its own domestic audience.
The decision to review the ethical guidelines isn’t necessarily a complete abandonment of ethical principles. Rather, it is a response to the evolving nature of the global economy and the ethical quandaries involved. There is no simple solution, and it is a lengthy process that takes years to sort out all while trying to please various groups. In the face of modern international relations, where business dealings with governments involved in conflicts are business as usual, the old ethics guidelines did not apply.
Of course, the ethical framework also raises the question of hypocrisy. Norway’s stance on ethical investing, as well as the world’s, is inconsistent. For instance, the Norwegian fund continues to hold shares in Tesla, even after the CEO, Elon Musk, has made controversial statements and decisions. It is a sign of how the fund can potentially make decisions for political grandstanding while not incurring any financial costs.
In the end, the Norwegian oil fund’s decision to re-evaluate its ethical rules boils down to a complicated balancing act. The fund is faced with reconciling its ethical commitments with its financial responsibilities, especially in the context of an increasingly complex and interconnected global landscape. The story is a cautionary tale about how difficult it is to live by high ethical standards in an era where everyone seems to be in the wrong.