The controversial new ownership policy requires AP funds to vote against all top management bonus schemes in Swedish companies where the funds are shareholders. But the AP fund legislation, which is decided by the parliament, clearly states that each fund’s board is responsible for the corporate governance policy and that the AP funds cannot be used as political or economical instruments.

Surprisingly, the few critical voices that have emerged have not come from the opposition, but from within the right-wing government coalition parties. Fredrick Federley, member of parliament for the Centre Party, is calling for Konstitutionsutskottet, the Committee on the Constitution, which scrutinises the work of the government and ministers, to look into whether the directive is consistent with AP fund legislation.

Mr Federley said: “I think it’s very strange that no one else in the parliament has reacted. The decision opens up for a politicisation of the AP funds, which have an incredible impact on the Swedish business industry as such large owners. It also creates a dangerous precedent for future governments.”

It is feared that party politics could overshadow the AP funds’ aim of maximising returns. Carl B Hamilton, member of parliament and chief economic spokesperson for the Liberal Party, has warned that next time, the funds may be forced to intervene in struggling Swedish companies or become a tool to fight climate change.

Svenskt Näringsliv, the confederation of Swedish enterprises, has also lashed out against what it refers to as “AP fund socialism”.

To make matters worse, the new policy has come into force in the middle of annual general meeting season. The AP funds, which declined to comment on the government’s move, have decided to abstain from voting on any issues regarding remunerations and bonuses for the remaining weeks of the season.

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend