According to Financial Times News, Norway has suspended its ethical investing rules for its massive $2.1tn sovereign wealth fund to avoid being forced to sell stakes in Amazon, Microsoft and Alphabet. Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg revealed the US government expressed concerns after the fund recently divested from Caterpillar over its bulldozers being used in Palestinian territories. The center-left government rushed an urgent proposal through parliament on Tuesday, putting the independent ethics council’s work on hold. Stoltenberg specifically mentioned the council was planning to examine tech giants including Amazon, Microsoft and Google-owner Alphabet, plus companies on a UN blacklist issued in July. The finance minister argued that divesting from these massive companies would undermine the fund’s purpose as a broad, diversified global investment vehicle, especially since the seven largest US tech firms make up over 15% of the fund’s equity holdings.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
Convenient timing
Here’s the thing that makes me skeptical about this move. The timing is just too perfect. The ethics council was literally about to start looking into these exact companies when suddenly the government discovers an “urgent” need to suspend the whole process. And it’s not like these are small positions we’re talking about – we’re looking at the fund‘s largest equity holdings here. Basically, they’re admitting that their ethical guidelines would probably require selling these stocks, but that would be too financially painful.
Stoltenberg’s argument about diversification sounds reasonable on the surface, but it raises a bigger question: what’s the point of having ethical guidelines if you suspend them whenever they become inconvenient? The fund already sold half its Israeli holdings and dumped Caterpillar under political pressure. Now they’re drawing a line at the tech giants because, well, they’re just too big and important to divest from.
Political backlash brewing
The government couldn’t even pass this measure with its own coalition partners. They needed support from center-right opposition groups, which tells you something about how controversial this move is. Left-wing politicians who the government needs for budget approval are absolutely furious about it. The Greens leader Arild Hermstad put it bluntly: “It means that if you are a big enough company, you can do whatever you want.”
And Socialist Left leader Kirsti Bergstø didn’t hold back either, accusing the government of catering to “Trump’s fear-mongering” and “tech oligarchs” rather than listening to its own population. That’s some pretty strong language in normally consensus-driven Norwegian politics. These aren’t fringe voices – these are parties the government needs to function.
Bigger shifts coming
What’s really interesting is that Stoltenberg – a former NATO head, remember – also signaled they’re considering allowing investments in defense companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin that have been off-limits because they make nuclear weapons components. He called the current situation a “paradox” since Norway benefits from NATO’s nuclear umbrella while banning investments in companies that support that very system.
So we’re not just talking about a temporary suspension here. This looks like the beginning of a major overhaul of the fund’s entire ethical framework. The ethics council itself welcomed the review, noting the “political disagreement” about companies connected to Israel and Gaza. But here’s my question: when you start making exceptions for the biggest companies and potentially open the door to weapons manufacturers, are you really maintaining ethical standards or just creating a more convenient investment policy?
The fund contributes about a quarter of Norway’s national budget, so there are real financial stakes here. But the whole point of having an ethics council was to make decisions based on principles, not portfolio optimization. This move suggests that when ethics clash with returns, returns might be winning more often than we’d like to admit.
