We expect full transparency regarding companies’ interactions with policymakers. As investors, we do not only manage capital; we manage risk. In today’s complex geopolitical environment, insufficient transparency contributes to instability and undermines both long-term value creation and market trust.
It does little good for a company to set ambitious climate targets if it simultaneously advances and finances political resistance to the frameworks intended to curb the worst consequences of global warming.
Speaking With Two Voices
As one of the Nordic’s largest asset managers and the world’s leading investors in responsible finance, we view the lack of openness around political influence as a systemic risk — to both democracy and financial stability.
We are increasingly seeing companies that publicly champion strong sustainability and ethical standards, while at the same time engaging in behindthescenes lobbying that works against the same goals.
We are not asking companies to stop engaging with policymakers, on the contrary, dialogue is essential for creating sound regulatory frameworks and for ensuring the responsible management of society’s resources. What we are asking for is transparency about the content of these conversations and the interests being promoted.
Bringing Light Into Closed Rooms
Identifying lobbying activity is straightforward, but the international think-tank InfluenceMap provides valuable insight into these closed processes. Its strongest data currently relates to climate policy, an area that has broad implications for many other policy fields. Investing in line with the Paris Agreement is about more than buying shares in green companies; it is about ensuring that the companies we already own do not undermine our shared future and financial stability.
InfluenceMap analyzes how companies and financial actors shape climate policy. It reveals a clear gap between what many of the world’s largest companies say about their climate commitments and what they actually pursue through their lobbying efforts. This influence occurs either directly or via the industry associations to which they belong.
The “lobbying gap” on climate poses three main risks for investors:
- Regulatory risk: By delaying necessary policy changes, companies increase the likelihood that future regulation will be more abrupt and costly.
- Reputational risk: Companies exposed for opposing climate goals face backlash from customers.
- Portfolio risk: For broadly diversified institutional investors, the shortterm gains a single company achieves from avoiding regulation are outweighed by the longterm economic losses that climate change inflicts across the rest of the market.
Holding Boards Accountable
As global investors, we are entering a new proxy season with many annual general meetings taking place this spring. In 2025, we participated in 2,138 general meetings and cast votes on 26,399 resolutions.
These meetings are our most important platform for addressing the issue of lobbying transparency. We will continue to hold boards accountable for ensuring alignment between a company’s stated values and its actual engagement with public authorities.
As investors, we use our voting rights and our capital to ensure that companies not only talk about responsibility, but also demonstrate it in their interactions with decision makers. Full transparency is not a burden; it is a prerequisite for a wellfunctioning and sustainable capital market.
Without clear insight into companies’ dialogue with public authorities, we are investing in the dark. We cannot afford that when we are collectively working to build resilient and robust societies.