\n<\/p>\n
Norway is expected to overhaul the ethical rules for its $2.3 trillion wealth fund \u200bin response to the findings of a state-appointed commission due on Thursday, a year after it paused divestments in the face of US scrutiny.<\/strong><\/p>\n The \u200cTrump administration had protested against the fund\u2019s divestment from Caterpillar shares over the use of the US company\u2019s bulldozers in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.<\/p>\n Weeks later, Norway\u2019s parliament voted in favour of pausing ethics-based divestments by the world\u2019s largest state-owned fund pending the outcome of a review, the findings of which are due to be released at 0700 GMT on Thursday<\/p>\n The government denied \u200bthis move was motivated by concerns over consequences of potentially upsetting the US, where more than half of the fund\u2019s assets are invested.<\/p>\n Before \u200bthe suspension, the Council on Ethics, the fund\u2019s independent ethical watchdog, made recommendations to divest and sent them to the \u2060board of the central bank, which had the final say. The board usually followed the council\u2019s recommendations.<\/p>\n Since the suspension, all recommendations have instead been sent to \u200bNorges Bank Investment Management, which is the fund\u2019s operator, with no divestments made over the period.<\/p>\n Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg said securing the fund, which finances a quarter \u200bof the country\u2019s public spending, was \u201cone of the most important things we do in Norway\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cThe world is changing and the value chain is becoming more and more integrated. It is difficult to distinguish between civil and military products,\u201d he told Reuters on Wednesday.<\/p>\n He also pointed to the concentration of the fund\u2019s value in a handful of companies, mostly US tech \u200bgiants such as Nvidia, Apple and Amazon, with 10 accounting for more than 20% of the value of its share portfolio.<\/p>\n \u201cThis type of concentration \u2026 means that \u200bindividual decisions can have much greater consequences than in the past,\u201d said Stoltenberg, a former NATO secretary-general, adding that his priority was for the fund to remain broadly invested.<\/p>\n \u201cWe \u200cshould not \u2060do things that can undermine that. At the same time, we must have a good ethical framework,\u201d he said in an interview in Norway\u2019s parliament.<\/p>\n The commission\u2019s proposals will form the basis for the government to make its own as part of an annual white paper on the sovereign wealth fund which is expected in spring 2027.<\/p>\n One possible change concerns the fund\u2019s ban on investing in companies making nuclear weapons, or key components, effectively ruling out the world\u2019s largest defence \u200bcompanies.<\/p>\n Stoltenberg asked the commission to look at \u200bwhether nuclear weapons as a deterrent \u2060should be taken into consideration.<\/p>\n Should the commission recommend lifting this ban, the fund could invest in the largest defence companies.<\/p>\n Its exclusion list currently cites Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Airbus, BAE Systems, Safran, Thales, BWX Technologies, Northrop Grumman, Fluor, General Dynamics, \u200bHuntington Ingalls Industries, Jacobs Solutions, L3Harris Technologies and L&T.<\/p>\n Civil society groups, including the Norwegian Red Cross, say that would \u200blegitimise investing in weapons \u2060of mass destruction.<\/p>\n \u201cThe way Norway invests significant sums contributes to setting standards globally,\u201d the Red Cross said in its submission to the commission.<\/p>\n Stoltenberg previously told Reuters the openness of the fund in publishing the reasons why it was divesting posed dilemmas.<\/p>\n Once the fund sold out of a company, the council published its recommendation in \u2060full, including \u200bits reasoning, based on months or years of investigations, providing a unique source of information \u200bfor the public and other investors.<\/p>\n The idea that these recommendations might no longer be made public has raised concerns among civil society groups, who say doing so provides a key source of information \u200bfor the general public and investors alike.<\/p>\n Some activists are also concerned that the Council on Ethics would be removed altogether.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nDEFENCE COMPANIES<\/strong><\/h2>\n
TRANSPARENCY OF THE FUND<\/strong><\/h2>\n