The war in Gaza has not only exposed geopolitical rifts but also placed Nordic investment strategies under a spotlight. With reputations built on ethical finance, sustainability, and responsible global engagement, Nordic funds and corporations are being tested on whether their money aligns with their stated values.
Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund under Fire
The world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, managed by Norway, came under intense criticism after revelations that it invested in Bet Shemesh Engines, a company servicing fighter jets used in Gaza. Political backlash was swift. Following government-ordered reviews, the fund began to divest from a number of Israeli firms. Eleven companies were dropped outright, and six more are set for exclusion due to their links to activity in Gaza or the West Bank. While the divestment signals responsiveness, critics argue it highlights a reactive rather than proactive approach to ethics.
Other Norwegian Players: Kongsberg Gruppen and KLP
Norway’s defence manufacturer Kongsberg Gruppen has been implicated through its ties to Nammo, a company involved in supplying components for F-35 fighter jets deployed by Israel. While not directly supplying Israel, the indirect link has raised questions. Meanwhile, KLP, Norway’s largest municipal pension fund, divested in 2025 from Oshkosh and ThyssenKrupp, both companies supplying vehicles and naval equipment to Israel. KLP had earlier excluded Caterpillar due to its equipment being used in occupied territories. These moves demonstrate a stricter interpretation of ethical guidelines than the sovereign wealth fund itself.
Denmark’s Maersk in the Spotlight
Maersk, the world’s largest shipping company, has faced activist campaigns for allegedly transporting military cargo, including F-35 parts, to Israel. In response to public pressure, Maersk tightened its cargo screening practices and divested from settlement-linked activities. However, it continues to transport goods for the Israeli Ministry of Defense. For critics, that continued engagement undermines its claim to ethical responsibility.
Who Remains Unchallenged?
Not all Nordic companies are implicated. Large pension funds in Sweden and Finland, for instance, have faced fewer accusations of complicity. Finnish state investment firm Solidium and Sweden’s AP Funds have, as of now, avoided exposure to Israeli companies directly linked to the Gaza war. Their investment strategies, at least publicly, appear more cautious or diversified, steering clear of politically sensitive holdings.
The Bigger Picture
The debate reveals a fracture between ethical branding and actual investment practice. While divestments by KLP and the recent corrective measures by the Norwegian wealth fund show willingness to adapt, the criticism lingers: should these funds have been involved in the first place? As Nordic countries continue to promote themselves as leaders in ethical finance, their global credibility depends on proactive vigilance rather than belated correction.
Other Nordic companies tied to Israeli firms involved in the war
A few have drawn scrutiny:
- Kongsberg Gruppen (Norway) has been accused of supplying parts used in F-35 fighter jets deployed by Israel. The connection traces through Nammo, in which Kongsberg holds shares.
- Maersk (Denmark, shipping giant) has faced international campaigns— “Mask Off Maersk”—for allegedly shipping military cargo (including F-35 parts) to Israel or settlements. Following pressure, the company changed screening practices—and formally divested from transporting goods to Israeli settlements—but still ships military gear to the Israeli Ministry of Defence.
- KLP, Norway’s largest municipal pension fund, also divested from Israeli-linked firms. In June 2025, it cut ties with US Oshkosh (vehicles) and German ThyssenKrupp (warships/submarines), both supplying items potentially used in Gaza. Earlier, it had already divested from Caterpillar due to its equipment’s use in occupied territories.
The bottom line: Nordic investors are finding it harder to separate capital from conflict. Those who maintain clean portfolios, like Sweden’s AP Funds and Finland’s Solidium, strengthen their ethical standing, while others face a public reckoning over whether profit is still outweighing principle.