• randomname
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Norges has publicly divested and excluded more than 100 companies from its investment because their products or conduct violate fundamental ethical norms. The list comprises companies from around the globe.

    Such exclusion lists exist for practically all similar funds, at least in democratic countries (before the tankies go mad: yes, it’s not perfect, we know). As you can see, in case of Norges, the list includes companies from a wide range of countries and regions, notably from the EU, the US, and China.

    The 11 Israeli companies are not yet listed on the Norges website (as far as I can tell from quickly reading through the list).

    Additon: The fund writes on its website:

    Since 2020, we have been in contact with more than 60 companies to raise this issue [of war and conflict zones]. Of these, 39 dialogues were related to the West Bank and Gaza. In the autumn of 2024, we further intensified the monitoring of our investments in Israeli companies. As a result, we have sold our investments in several Israeli companies.

        • Potato@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          If the central bank of England was named “Englands Bank” would you call it Englands?

          Norges Bank literally means Bank of Norway, and is the central bank of Norway. Norge is the name of Norway in Norwegian. In Norwegian you add a s after a noun to make it possessive.

          Edit: Downvoting changes neither the name of the bank, nor Norwegian grammar, lol. This place is so Reddit-brained.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        You use the word “AI” like the right wing uses the word “woke”. It’s not a good look.

      • randomname
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Norway’s sovereign wealth fund - the Norges Bank Investment Management, a subsidiary of Norwegian central bank Norges - is the fund this article is about.

        They now do also all their Israeli-related investment in-house, btw, meaning that all investments that have been managed by external managers in Israel are now managed by Norges’ internal portfolio managers (additon: they are terminating contracts with external managers in Israel. So this is a process, but the decision has been made).

        • PissaIFrysern@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 days ago

          Are you confusing the name of subsidiary? Thinking it’s name is something like Norges - Bank Investment Management?

          It’s actually Norges Bank - Investment Management, which would translate to Bank of Norway - Investment Management. Because, you know, it manages investments.

          As a Norwegian I can safely say no one in Norway calls our central bank Norges, it is only called Norges Bank. Calling it Norges in Norwegian would be like calling it Norway’s in English. Norway’s what? Call it Norges Bank, Bank of Norway, Norwegian central bank. Just not Norges, because that name does not make sense.

    • Potato@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s about companies involved with the Israeli military and their actions in Gaza. The rest have either, not been found to be involved, or are being kept as a bargaining chip I guess.

      • luciferofastora@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        kept as a bargaining chip

        That’s my suspicion too. Cutting all ties also cuts all talks. Norges Bank has a duty to their own investors to balance the financial interest with ethical principles. If they’re otherwise profitable, it makes sense to hold on to the shares and use them as diplomatic leverage instead.

        Not all activism needs to be cut-and-dry. Often, negotiations can move a lot more than pure antagonism (though they often need to be backed up by some “otherwise…” to hold any weight).

    • Anyone@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 days ago

      What does ‘poorly’ mean? It is highly unusual for an institutional investor like this to divest (let alone from a dozen or so companies from a single country). Most of their assets never turn over.

    • Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Note: only the ones that are doing poorly

      Where do you get this? Your statement has nothing to do with the article.

      • marsza@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        7 days ago

        The 11 that are doing poorly. It makes very much sense if you pay attention

        • randomname
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 days ago

          @marsza@lemmy.cafe

          The 11 that are doing poorly. It makes very much sense if you pay attention

          Can you enlighten us how you paid attention? Which companies are these?

          • marsza@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            7 days ago

            Someone who works at Citibank NA comes over to my house. I tie them up and do weird things to them. Then we have dinner and talk shit about financial stuff. Of course, you’re not gonna believe me but guess what I don’t care.