Norway is, by definition, a welfare state. About a fifth of Norway’s social welfare success comes from a lot of oil. It is not a stretch to say that in Norway we see how an entire country’s way of living is being effected by lower oil prices and changing environmental times. With the slowdown of the oil industry in recent years, Norway has had a rising ornery conservative movement. Luckily, recent elections have shown a resurgence of lefty politics, and while conservatives still have control, the green movement (and labor) have regained footholds in the government. Part of controlling the government in Norway is controlling how its $860 billion sovereign wealth fund is being handled. Last year, the Norwegian parliament agreed to ban companies that base more than 30 percent of their wealth in coal.
Norway’s $860 billion sovereign wealth fund unveiled the first list of miners and power producers to be excluded from its portfolio following a ban on coal investments.
The 52 companies being barred include American Electric Power Co. Inc., China Shenhua Energy Co. Ltd., Whitehaven Coal Ltd., Tata Power Co. and Peabody Energy Corp., according to a statement from Norges Bank Investment Management, the unit of Norway’s central bank that manages the world’s biggest wealth fund. The exclusions are based on new criteria introduced by the government in February impacting companies that base at least 30 percent of their activities or revenues on coal.
The Norges Bank is continuing to review companies and promise further bans by the end of the year. Part of this process is finding out what companies plan to do with their business models in the next few years. If a company can show that it is moving to lowering its reliance on coal below the 30 percent mark they won’t be banned. But since these companies, when reaching this size, don’t actually know how to do much in the way of innovating business models, they have been pretending not to get their mail.
The analysis process based on the new criterion is “comprehensive and demanding,” and the fund is struggling to obtain sufficiently detailed information from the companies, meaning it also relies on other sources, Skaar said.
“Before we make anything public, we will contact the relevant companies to seek information,” she said. “This time we sent 50 letters, and got only five replies. That’s a bit disappointing.”
[My emphasis]
They must have been too busy trying to pay someone off.