Best Drupal HostingBest Joomla HostingBest Wordpress Hosting
FOLLOW US

 

 

WORLD POLICY BOOKS

 

In A Deluge of Consequences, the first World Policy e-book, intrepid journalist Jacques Leslie takes us along on a mythic, spell-binding trip to the bucolic kingdom of Bhutan, where the planet's next environmental disaster is set to unfold. 

 

FOCUS ON

The  World Policy Institute understands that policymakers and opinion leaders need creative ways to catalyze innovation and engage wider coalitions in solving some of the world’s biggest challenges.  By working with artists focused on the same issues, this cross-cutting initiative seeks to build a new, collaborative model for social change. 

AddToAny
Share/Save

Norwegian Wouldn't

By Michael Busch

Most variations of international-relations realism include some notion of states sacrificing ethical considerations at the altar of national interest.  It's never been completely clear, of course, whether this is a descriptive claim, or a prescriptive one — whether, in other words, the idea is that states should behave this way, or that they in fact do.   

Those pondering this question ought to consider the case of Norway.  In a brief but revealing cable included in the WikiLeaks "CableGate" trove and published last week by the Norwegian paper Aftenposten, U.S. embassy officials report that the Nordic nation opted to divest its sovereign wealth holdings from companies violating "humanitarian principles" and "fundamental ethical norms." 

If you are thinking that major global corporations aren't exactly quaking in their boots at the prospect of divestiture by Norway, think again. Built on the healthy revenues of Norway's thriving oil sector, the country's sovereign fund invests its considerable wealth in over 7,000 corporations worldwide.  In fact, the fund is the largest single investor in Europe. 

To judge from the WikiLeaked cable, the combination of Norway's financial heft with its rigorous ethical standards concerned American diplomats who feared it would disproportionately affect U.S. corporations — specifically, America's highly profitable and politically influential arms manufacturers.

The cable notes that according to the ethical guidelines governing Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the country is not to invest in companies who handle "weapons that through their normal use may violate fundamental humanitarian principles," which Norway's minister of finance "identified as weapons such [as] cluster munitions or nuclear weapons."  According to the cable, "it is as a result of this screening that Norway divested from several American arms manufacturing companies."

American companies are hardly alone in earning the disapproval of Norway's ethical watchdogs.  According to the same cable, the Norwegian Ethics Council, the agency tasked with reviewing the behavior of companies, "has determined that if companies build large gas pipelines in Burma they will likely be involved with the Burmese Armed Forces and thus probably undermine human rights...The companies at risk include Total, Daewoo and PetroChina."

Norway also severed ties with a global behemoth of a different kind: Walmart.  Norway washed its hands of Sam Walton and friends after determining that the company is guilty of "serious violations of fundamental ethical norms."  In Walmart's case, it's not clear if the company ever tried to address Norway's concerns; according to the cable, the Norwegians simply might have thought the effort "would be fruitless."

In point of fact, Norway did reach out to Walmart, asking for the company's response to allegations that the world's largest company, in the words of the U.S. cable, "consistently and systematically employs minors in contravention of international rules, that working conditions at many of its suppliers are dangerous or health-hazardous, that workers are pressured into working overtime without compensations, [and] that the company systematically discriminates against women in pay."

Norway's central bank reported that Walmart never responded.

Michael Busch teaches international relations at the City College of New York and is Research Associate at the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies.

Share/Save

Anonymous's picture
May be true, but


I fear that this comes at a time where the fund is receiving some flak back in Norway for not delivering results while spending way to much on salaries (bonuses). I could go on in great lenght both won't, the essence of this article holds true. It's the most transparent investor of it's kind. Still it's often linked with companies that breach basic human rights. Still better than most others. But they're not the angels you make them out to be.

Anonymous's picture
Whoa. Thanks for the article,


Whoa. Thanks for the article, it was a good read. I do have a question, though; apparently, Total is French, Daewoo is South Korean, and PetroChina is Chinese. What do they have to do with US interests? Don't tell me that pursuing US interests mean pursuing US allies' interests, too? Man, this is like a clique where the members do everything possible to help each other at the cost of members outside the clique. I guess that high school never ends.

Anonymous's picture
Maybe less of a clique thing,


Maybe less of a clique thing, the paragraph was just talking about other companies that Norway has divested in. I think just to show that Norway does not only dislike "bad" American companies, but "bad" companies regardless of nationality. Adding kudo points to their karma

Anonymous's picture
http://www.lewissociety.org/i


http://www.lewissociety.org/innerring.php
Post new comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. If you have a Gravatar account, used to display your avatar.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.
World Policy on Facebook