• snipvoid@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Again: The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund still have active investments in Russia.

    Where is the outrage for them?

    According to this Norwegian publication in an article published January 31st 2023:

    the Norwegian oil fund still holds hundreds of millions worth of shares in petroleum companies like Gazprom, Novatek, Bashneft and Lukoil

    Even if the value of their investments lower, they still haven’t pulled out any from Russia. The investments could be worth very little, but they still have something invested in Russia.

    Norwegian Government on February 28, 2022, ordered the Oil Fund to freeze all investments in Russia and prepare a plan for divesting with the goal of totally exiting the Russian stock market

    What’s stopping them?

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, the US has been helping Saudi Arabia starve and destroy Yemen for eight years now. Aren’t we also a sponsor of war?

  • AresUII@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Also:

    • Don’t import Coke from Mexico–the anchor bottler also has a stake in Heineken (soup)
    • Don’t drink Dr. Pepper until Mondelez quits Russia or DPS
  • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This international sponsors of war thing really should only apply to companies based in countries that have sanctioned Russia - if you’re not operating against sanctions, the onus isn’t with the company (which could be sued for contract violations) but with the government for not placing sanctions.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The Finnish parliament will no longer carry Pepsi products as the American soft drink giant continues to support the Russian economy by continuing its operations in the aggressor country, Finnish news outlet Yle reported on Sept. 5, citing the manager of the parliament’s restaurant.

    Pepsi products that had already been received have been removed from the shelves.

    Earlier, MP Tuomas Kettunen demanded that the parliament building stop selling Pepsi products.

    Pepsi and Mars were added to the international sponsors of war list on Sept. 1 by Ukraine’s National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) for continuing to operate in Russia after the invasion and continuing to pay taxes to the aggressor state’s budget.

    Earlier, the media reported that Mondelez, Mars, and PepsiCo recorded a significant increase in sales in Russia in 2022.


    The original article contains 131 words, the summary contains 131 words. Saved 0%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      French Fries is a word. You can’t boycott a word which is why Freedom Fries is dumb.

      Pepsi is a corporation. You can boycott a corporation and boycotts can influence the decisions that corporation makes.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not dumb at all to boycott a corporation that’s doing something wrong.

          It’s just the corporations that tell you it’s dumb because they want to continue to do terrible things without it affecting their profits.

          • Melllvar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s dumb because it’s pointless political theater. I mean how much Pepsi does the Finnish parliament actually drink?

            • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              In a boycott, it’s not the effect of one individual that matters it’s the collective effect of millions of people that can have an effect. To accomplish there needs to be awareness of the boycott.

              Right now we’re discussing the boycott of Pepsi products, so they’ve successfully raised awareness. Which is the point of doing it.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Per your “argument”, every single individual and entity boycotting a corporation is dumb, yet when they add up to millions of single individuals and entitities doing it it’s not dumb.

              Unless you have some magical way of getting millions of people and entities all over the World to all start doing something at the same time with full commitment, it’s always going to take individual people and entities boycotting things (something you think is dumb) to eventually add up to millions of them doing it (which is you don’t think is dumb anymore).

              In other words, either you mentally live in Narnia or some similar La-La-Land of magical thinking, or your “argument” is senseless and is really just an excuse to do nothing.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes. In 2003 The US Congress changed the wording of its cafeteria menu because France opposed the invasion of Iraq.

  • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    They have a duty to try and maximize the return on investment for their stakeholders. Dumping all of their stock on the market at once would crater the value of those holdings. In the end the only people who would benefit would be those who picked up that stock cheap (probably the Russian Oligarchy). It would also greatly harm the Sovereign fund due to the losses incurred.

    Selling off holdings slowly to try and minimize losses for the sovereign fund is the logical move.