Key Takeaways
- • The Gjedrem Committee, appointed by the Norwegian government in November 2025 and chaired by former central bank governor Svein Gjedrem, submitted a unanimous report on 15 October 2026 proposing changes to the ethical framework of Norway's Government Pension Fund Global, the world's largest sovereign wealth fund.
- • The proposals would strip the Council on Ethics of its power to recommend exclusion, shifting that decision to Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) and allowing some risk assessments to be withheld from public disclosure.
- • Engagement would replace exclusion as the primary response to serious ethical risks, with exclusion required only where engagement has failed and unless exclusion would undermine global diversification.
- • The committee proposes an exception to the nuclear weapons exclusion for producers based in NATO allies that are recognized nuclear-weapon states, which would open the fund to certain US, UK and French producers.
- • Amnesty International Norway called the changes the most significant weakening of the fund's human rights safeguards in two decades; the recommendations do not change the fund's rules until adopted by the government and parliament.
Summary
Amnesty International said the proposed changes to the ethical governance framework of Norway's Government Pension Fund Global could significantly weaken independent human rights oversight, reduce transparency and make it harder to exclude companies linked to serious abuses. John Peder Egenæs, Secretary General of Amnesty International Norway, described the proposals as the most significant weakening of the fund's human rights safeguards in two decades.
The Gjedrem Committee's report recommends that the Council on Ethics continue to assess the risk of companies contributing to serious ethical violations, but without recommending exclusion or observation. Norges Bank would determine the response. The proposals also allow the Council's risk assessments to be withheld from public disclosure where conditions relating to the fund's economic interests or NBIM's management responsibilities are met. Amnesty argued that the public must still be able to scrutinize why NBIM retains investments in companies linked to serious human rights risks.
Under the proposed framework, engagement would become the primary response to identified risks. NBIM would exclude a company only where engagement has failed or has no realistic prospect of succeeding within a reasonable time, unless exclusion would limit the fund's ability to remain broadly diversified globally. Amnesty warned that this exception could allow financial considerations to override human rights concerns.
On technology, the report recognizes that cloud computing, artificial intelligence and data analysis can be used in surveillance, intelligence gathering and military targeting, but proposes that sales of generic products should normally fall outside conduct-based exclusion criteria. For major technology companies, diversification considerations may carry decisive weight. Egenæs said the fund must examine what suppliers know about how their services are used.
On weapons, the committee proposes an exception to the nuclear weapons exclusion for producers based in states that are both recognized nuclear-weapon states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and NATO allies of Norway, which would benefit producers in the United States, the United Kingdom and France. It also recommends removing the criterion addressing arms sales to states using weapons to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law, while retaining the criterion on serious rights violations in war and expanding a criterion on arms sales to sanctioned states.
Amnesty called on the Norwegian government and parliament to maintain strong independent oversight, meaningful public transparency and exclusion as a safeguard, and to ground any revised framework in UN and OECD standards on business and human rights. The committee's recommendations do not themselves change the fund's rules. Amnesty has previously called on Norway to divest from companies involved in maintaining Israel's unlawful occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The Gjedrem Committee's report recommends that the Council on Ethics continue to assess the risk of companies contributing to serious ethical violations, but without recommending exclusion or observation. Norges Bank would determine the response. The proposals also allow the Council's risk assessments to be withheld from public disclosure where conditions relating to the fund's economic interests or NBIM's management responsibilities are met. Amnesty argued that the public must still be able to scrutinize why NBIM retains investments in companies linked to serious human rights risks.
Under the proposed framework, engagement would become the primary response to identified risks. NBIM would exclude a company only where engagement has failed or has no realistic prospect of succeeding within a reasonable time, unless exclusion would limit the fund's ability to remain broadly diversified globally. Amnesty warned that this exception could allow financial considerations to override human rights concerns.
On technology, the report recognizes that cloud computing, artificial intelligence and data analysis can be used in surveillance, intelligence gathering and military targeting, but proposes that sales of generic products should normally fall outside conduct-based exclusion criteria. For major technology companies, diversification considerations may carry decisive weight. Egenæs said the fund must examine what suppliers know about how their services are used.
On weapons, the committee proposes an exception to the nuclear weapons exclusion for producers based in states that are both recognized nuclear-weapon states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and NATO allies of Norway, which would benefit producers in the United States, the United Kingdom and France. It also recommends removing the criterion addressing arms sales to states using weapons to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law, while retaining the criterion on serious rights violations in war and expanding a criterion on arms sales to sanctioned states.
Amnesty called on the Norwegian government and parliament to maintain strong independent oversight, meaningful public transparency and exclusion as a safeguard, and to ground any revised framework in UN and OECD standards on business and human rights. The committee's recommendations do not themselves change the fund's rules. Amnesty has previously called on Norway to divest from companies involved in maintaining Israel's unlawful occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.