The government sees itself as a “responsible investor” and says that its Pension Fund, which invests the country’s oil income in 7,500 companies around the world, is ethical. The fund has established ethical criteria and a number of companies, especially those involved in arms production, have been excluded from it. But Norway is investing in numerous mining and oil companies long accused of major human rights abuses, along with dozens of companies accused of complicity in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. Indeed, the list of companies reads more like a dirty list than an ethical one. Independent analysis shows that similar investment funds in the Netherlands and the UK have higher standards of ethical criteria.

Norway has long seen its large aid programme – the most generous among rich nations, at over 1 per cent of its GDP – as a sign of its ethical commitment. However, in 2007-08, the increase in the market value of the pension fund was NOK 227 billion – ten times the amount of aid. This sits oddly with the government’s commitment to promote the global redistribution of wealth.

Norway’s oil industry may be contributing massively to the country’s wealth, but it is increasingly active in states abusing human rights. StatoilHydro has worked in Angola for 17 years, a country where 70 per cent of the population languishes in poverty and the elite largely loots the country’s oil wealth for itself. The company, and the Norwegian government, have led the world in promoting transparency in the world’s oil industry, but this has had only limited impacts.

Norway is known around the world for its commitment to the environment, but this image should increasingly be challenged. Norway is an increasing emitter of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, mainly due to its oil and gas production. It is the seventh highest polluter among the 30 rich nations in the OECD, measured per capita. Norway’s emissions increased by 11.7 per cent from 1990 to 2004 – seven times more than similar high-income countries. In 2008, Norway’s emissions decreased slightly, by just over 2 per cent, but were still 7 per cent higher than Norway’s commitment under the Kyoto protocol. The government is spending over NOK 2 billion to combat deforestation – this is a large sum in itself but a drop in the ocean compared to Norway’s contribution to the problem.

Another little secret is Norway’s growing arms industry. Norway is a small exporter compared to Britain and France and has much tighter restrictions on arms exports. However, Norwegian arms continue to be used by the US and Britain in offensive operations in Iraq while Norwegian military equipment still goes to a small number of human rights abusers, notably Saudi Arabia.

Norway takes a genuine and important ethical lead on some international policy issues but the list of its unethical policies is becoming longer and Norway’s benign self-image is likely come under much greater scrutiny in the years ahead. The evidence suggest that Norway has already lost its ethical niche and, with only some exceptions, has become little different to other rich countries exploiting the planet for their own benefit.

Ministers seem to believe that they can have their cake and eat it. That they can have a large oil industry and lead the fight against climate change. That they can work in repressive regimes and be seen as champions of human rights. And that they can promote Norwegian business interests to the same degree as other states but be seen as pioneers of corporate social responsibility.

The reality is that ministers face hard policy choices. Norway’s government and society remain fundamentally more open, and more prepared to consider alternative ideas, than most other countries. This means there is still hope for a fundamental change of direction and a re-commitment by Norway to genuinely ethical policies. This should be Norway’s big idea to give to the world, in its own self-interest as much as others. 

The opinions of the author do not necessarily reflect the views of The Foreigner

Reproduced in its entirety with permission from the author.