Demands the Norwegian Petroleum Fund to boycott Russian shares – NRK Norway – Overview of news from different parts of the country
– They own shares in companies that are absolutely crucial for the Putin regime in financing the war in Ukraine. It is a new situation and requires new measures, says Assistant Secretary General Gunnar Ekeløve-Slydal in the Helsinki Committee.
They work to defend the rights of the inhabitants of former Soviet states, such as Ukraine. Ekeløve-Slydal believes that the night’s invasion must lead to a new course for the oil wealth invested.
– The Petroleum Fund should simply sell out of the portfolio in Russia, Ekeløve-Slydal believes.
Billion investment
The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), popularly called the Petroleum Fund, has a small share of the shares in Russia.
The latest updated figures show that the fund had invested NOK 27 billion in Russia.
This applies, among other things, to the gas giant Gazprom, where more than half is owned by the Russian state.
– These companies laid the foundation for Russia to go to war. It costs a lot of money to fight, and much of the financing comes from these companies, says Ekeløve-Slydal.
Vedum is waiting for sanctions
Minister of Finance Trygve Slagsvold Vedum (Sp) will keep investments out of “day-to-day politics”but allows for sanctions that may require the Oil Fund to exit.
– It is of course the case that we will discuss sanctions now, and it can also be enacted legally if sanctions are to be discussed. If there are any companies that come into conflict with it, it is Norwegian law that measures must be taken. But we do not use the Oil Fund in marking day-to-day politics, he says to NRK.
Vedum is aware that sanctions that become Norwegian law will take precedence if a conflict arises between what the Petroleum Fund wants and what the sanctions involve.
– If there are companies or something else that comes in violation of the sanction, Norwegian law applies, he says.
Warns against «cheap symbol policy»
BI professor Espen Henriksen believes that the sale and exclusion of the shares in Russian companies can become “cheap symbolic politics”.
– If we were to sell out of Russia, it would hardly matter to Russia in general or the bandits in the circle around grandfather in the bunker. On a cruel day like this, we should rather concentrate on reactions that actually have an effect, including measures that will also be costly for us, he says.
The finance professor has more sense of how the Petroleum Fund today works with ethical investment decisions.
– We acknowledge the obvious that there are no smaller nuclear weapons, class weapons or tobacco in the world because the GPFG has withdrawn, but we just do not want to receive dividends from such activities. In the same way, we should consider whether we want to receive dividends from companies in Russia, says Henriksen and adds:
– It is also important that the GPFG is not perceived as a political tool. How to maneuver this will be demanding.