Swedish AP funds hold multi‑billion‑krona stakes in companies accused by UN human rights experts of contributing to violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
The largest manager, AP7, says it needs more verifiable evidence before changing holdings, as pressure grows on Sweden’s public pension system to align investments with its ethical guidelines.
UN accusations and named companies
Several UN statements since 2024 have urged states and companies to halt arms transfers to Israel over risks of serious violations in Gaza. Among companies highlighted by UN experts and rights monitors are Palantir—whose software supports defence and surveillance applications—and Rolls‑Royce, cited for engines used in Israeli military platforms.
Swedish media reporting connects AP funds’ portfolios to these firms as potential enablers of rights abuses. Both companies were asked for comment in Sweden but had not responded at the time of reporting.
Funds’ response: ‘need more evidence’
AP7’s sustainability lead has stated that the fund requires more verifiable information from conflict zones before taking exclusion decisions. The fund plans to engage directly with flagged companies during autumn and review whether their products or services contribute to alleged breaches of human rights and humanitarian law. The buffer funds AP1–AP4 coordinate on stewardship through the Council on Ethics (Etikrådet), which conducts company dialogues and can recommend exclusions when norms are breached.
Ethical rules and due‑diligence obligations
All AP funds operate under ethics and sustainability policies that reference UN conventions, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and OECD standards. The policy framework requires enhanced due diligence for investments linked to armed conflicts, and investors are expected to assess whether corporate products enable serious rights abuses.
At EU level, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is set to reinforce obligations on large companies and their value chains, increasing scrutiny on asset owners’ portfolios.
In the Nordic region, some institutional investors have divested from Palantir citing human‑rights risk in the occupied Palestinian territory, while others prefer engagement over immediate sale.
