Norway is opening a broad review of the ethical guidelines for Norway’s oil fund, and Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg has indicated that Swedish and Danish public pension funds could serve as models for a new framework. The aim is to balance long-term returns with credible ethical standards at a time of geopolitical tension and intense scrutiny of the fund’s investments.
Why Norway is revisiting ethical guidelines for its oil fund
The Government Pension Fund Global (Statens pensjonsfond utland, SPU) is one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds, with assets of around 20,000 billion Norwegian kroner (about €1,700 billion). Its investments finance a significant share of Norway’s welfare state and are governed by ethical guidelines that have been in place since 2004.
In early November, the Storting asked the government to carry out a full review of the ethical framework for the fund. At the same time, a political majority decided to put the Council on Ethics (Etikkrådet) temporarily on hold, pausing new exclusions of companies until the review is completed. The government has appointed a committee led by former central bank governor Svein Gjedrem to propose changes to the framework by October 2026.
Stoltenberg has argued that the current rules may have unintended consequences, especially when companies are linked to conflicts such as the war in Gaza through complex supply chains and digital services. He has warned that a lower threshold for exclusion could push the fund out of many large technology companies and weaken its profile as a broadly diversified, index-related investor.
How Swedish and Danish pension funds handle ethical exclusions
In this context, Stoltenberg has pointed to Swedish AP funds and the Danish ATP fund (Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension) as possible reference models. These are large public pension funds with their own approaches to responsible investment and ethical risk.
According to figures cited by the finance minister, Norway’s oil fund currently excludes around 180 companies on ethical grounds. By contrast, the Swedish AP funds exclude 17 companies, while the Danish ATP fund has placed 96 companies on its exclusion list. The threshold for excluding a company is therefore higher in Sweden and Denmark, and both funds place more emphasis on active dialogue with companies rather than divestment.
ATP has, for example, increased its holdings in major defence and aerospace companies such as BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin. These are among the firms that Norway’s oil fund has previously excluded from its portfolio under existing guidelines. The Danish fund justifies its investments by referring to national security, NATO obligations and the role of defence companies in European rearmament, while still maintaining its own red lines on cluster munitions, anti-personnel mines and other controversial weapons.
For Stoltenberg, these examples show that neighbouring countries have chosen a more flexible model, where engagement and long-term ownership are the primary tools, and exclusion is reserved for the most serious and documented breaches of norms.
From exclusions to engagement: what could change for the oil fund
The review of the ethical framework opens the door to a possible shift in the balance between exclusions and active ownership in the management of SPU. Under the interim rules adopted in November, Norges Bank can still sell holdings for financial or risk-based reasons, but it cannot exclude new companies purely on ethical grounds until the new framework is in place.
Supporters of Stoltenberg’s approach argue that a smaller exclusion list, combined with stronger expectations for engagement, could make the fund a more effective shareholder. They see a risk that extensive exclusions may reduce transparency, if sensitive decisions are instead taken as unpublicised risk-based sales.
Critics, including human rights organisations and several opposition parties, fear the opposite: that pausing new exclusions and looking to funds that exclude fewer companies will weaken Norway’s ethical profile. They argue that the Council on Ethics has set an international standard for responsible investment, and that reducing its role could send a signal that profit is being prioritised over human rights, international law and climate concerns.
Weapons, technology and human rights at the core of the debate
The most contentious issues in the debate concern weapons manufacturers, dual-use technologies and large technology companies. Norway’s oil fund has long-standing criteria against cluster munitions, certain nuclear weapons and serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Several defence companies have therefore been excluded from the portfolio.
At the same time, the war in Gaza and other conflicts have focused attention on digital infrastructure, cloud services and artificial intelligence supplied by major technology groups. The Council on Ethics has signalled that, under the current rules, the fund might have to consider divesting from large platforms if their services are seen as contributing to serious violations. Stoltenberg has warned that such a development could fundamentally change the fund’s risk profile and reduce its role as a broad global investor.
In Sweden and Denmark, the reference funds have so far maintained a more permissive stance towards parts of the defence sector, arguing that contributing to collective security is compatible with responsible investment. They still operate exclusion lists, but use them more selectively and emphasise ongoing dialogue with boards and management.
Nordic models and the future of responsible investment
By looking to Swedish and Danish funds as possible ethical models, the Norwegian government is signalling a willingness to adjust how ethical concerns are translated into investment decisions, while remaining within a Nordic tradition of responsible ownership. The outcome of the review will determine whether Norway moves closer to its neighbours’ model of more engagement and fewer exclusions, or whether it maintains a stricter interpretation of its ethical guidelines.
For other Nordic and European investors, the process in Oslo will be closely watched. Norway’s oil fund is a reference point in the global debate on sustainable finance, and any change in its approach to weapons, technology and human rights could influence standards far beyond the Nordic region. The committee’s recommendations in 2026 will therefore not only shape Norway’s future oil wealth, but also contribute to defining what ethical guidelines for large sovereign wealth funds mean in a more unstable world.
