Norway regulates greenhouse gas emissions primarily through the Climate Change Act (Klimaloven), which was enacted to promote the implementation of Norway’s climate targets and transition to a low-emission society by 2050. The Act sets ambitious targets for reducing emissions, aiming for a 55% reduction by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, and a 90-95% reduction by 2050. To ensure progress towards these goals, the government is required to review and update climate targets every five years. Additionally, Norway participates in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), which is a key tool for reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively. These regulations and targets are part of Norway’s broader strategy to combat climate change and align with international agreements like the Paris Agreement

In Norway, there is no statutory duty to implement net zero business strategies. However, companies are encouraged to adopt such strategies in line with national and international climate goal. The use of carbon offsets to meet net zero or carbon neutral commitments is regulated under the Norwegian Climate Act and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). There have been no test cases in Norway specifically brought against companies for undeliverable net zero strategies. There has, however, been an increase in ‘climate lawsuits’ in Norwegian courts as well. These have, to a limited extent, been directed specifically at individual companies, but rather at the state for not sufficiently considering the climate when granting exploration licenses for oil. One of the most well-known climate lawsuits in Norway is “The People’s Climate Lawsuit against the State” (also known as the “Arctic Oil Case”). This case was brought by environmental organizations Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth against the Norwegian state, represented by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. The organizations argued that the allocation of oil and gas licenses in the Barents Sea in 2016 violated Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a healthy environment. In 2020, the Supreme Court of Norway ruled on the case, concluding that the allocation of the licenses did not violate the Constitution. The ruling was made with eleven votes to four. Although the environmental organizations did not win, the case set an important precedent for future climate litigation in Norway.

Norway has established several national objectives to protect and enhance biodiversity, including efforts towards nature restoration. These objectives are primarily guided by the Nature Diversity Act, which aims to ensure that biodiversity is preserved as a foundation for human activity, culture, health, and well-being. There is a growing focus and awareness concerning biodiversity within the country. Norway has been actively involved in nature restoration efforts to combat the degradation of ecosystems and biodiversity loss. Norway’s commitment to nature restoration is aligned with international goals and agreements, such as the Nature Convention signed in December 2022, which aims to stop and reverse the loss of nature and ecosystems.

However, biodiversity in Norway is under increasing pressure due to national and European commitments to renewable energy, largely influenced by EU policies. Renewable energy targets, particularly those related to wind and solar power, are nature-intensive and have significant environmental impacts. These projects have often faced local and regional opposition. The progress of wind power projects has been notably limited, not only because of their environmental impact but also due to conflicts with the rights of the indigenous Sami people. A weakness of the Norwegian system and a significant risk for biodiversity loss is the lack of a comprehensive overview of land use. Norway has over 300 municipalities that are to some extent self-governing. This leads to substantial land loss as the various self-governing authorities are not coordinated. There are also different thresholds between municipalities regarding what, which, and how land should be managed. This results in extensive land consumption that is difficult to halt in the current political situation.

The pressure on biodiversity is further advanced by European and national ambitions for self-sufficiency and a renewed focus on the land-based mineral industry. These developments pose additional threats to biodiversity conservation efforts. Without clear political priorities and decisive action, it is likely that Norway’s biodiversity objectives will not be met. It is crucial for policymakers to balance the need for renewable energy and resource extraction with the imperative to protect and restore biodiversity.

It is important to emphasize that in the short and medium term, biodiversity is only limitedly threatened by climate change. The direct human activities currently taking place pose a much greater threat to biodiversity. There is a risk that the attention related to climate change diverts focus from the significant ongoing environmental destruction in our time caused by human activity.

Water as resource has historically not been a national problem. About 88 % (2024) of Norways energy production is hydroelectric power. Fresh water has historically also been abundant. Approximately 99.7% of the population receives drinking water of satisfactory hygienic quality. People have not typically been very aware of their water consumption. Water as a resource is a growing concern, due to long local pollution and Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. There is also increased attention to water consumption due to aging infrastructure with insufficient capacity that requires upgrading. Companies are mandated to report on their water usage, especially those operating in industries with significant water consumption. This typically includes businesses within the manufacturing industry such as chemical industry, food and beverage production, and metallurgy, power plants and other energy producers that use water for cooling or production, mining that extracts minerals and metals and uses water in the process, as well as larger farms and agricultural businesses that use water for irrigation and livestock. These requirements is primarily governed by the Water Resources Act, which aims to ensure the sustainable management and protection of the country’s water resources. The Act sets out comprehensive regulations that companies must adhere to, ensuring that water usage is monitored, reported, and managed responsibly.

Norway is a party to several key international chemical conventions aimed at protecting human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals and waste, such as the Stockholm Convention concerning Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) and The Basel Convention concerning the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. In Norway, the regulation of PFAS falls under the broader framework of environmental protection laws, including the Pollution Control Act and specific regulations targeting hazardous substances. The Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet) plays a key role in monitoring and regulating the use and discharge of PFAS to protect public health and the environment. To date, there have been no notable test cases in Norway specifically brought against companies for product liability or pollution of the environment related to PFAS. However, the Norwegian government and regulatory bodies have been proactive in addressing the risks associated with these substances through various measures. Norway has pursued an active chemical policy for many years and has its own chemical policy objectives and a list of priority substances that should preferably be removed from circulation. The priority list includes 85 substances and substance groups that can be categorized into 11 main groups. One of these main groups concerns the regulation of PFAS.

The Norwegian regulations related to ‘circularity’ is closely linked to EU regulations. The waste hierarchy is reflected through the Norwegian Pollution Control Act. There are a number of regulations in Norwegian law aimed at promoting circularity. These typically mirror EU regulations, such as the Ecodesign Directive. Norwegian progress related to circularity is, like EU progress, relatively limited. There are several challenges associated with increased circularity. One of them is measuring circularity, which in many cases borders on a philosophical question of how to measure something that never occurs, e.g., increased reuse. The European push for a circular economy is driven by European self-sufficiency considerations. It could be economically beneficial to focus on a circular economy at the European level, but the initiative itself lacks economic incentives to succeed. Norway has established an expert committee for the circular economy to assess increased use of economic incentives and thus make progress towards a more circular society.

Norway’s plastic regulations closely follow those of the EU, including a ban on plastic items based on the EU Single Use Plastic Directive (SUP Directive). Additionally, Norway has long enforced producer responsibility for plastic packaging. The country excels in managing beverage packaging, boasting a national deposit system with a 98% collection rate. Compared to many other nations, Norway’s handling of packaging waste and minimal littering is exemplary, though there is always room for improvement.

There is a clear obligation for employers to ensure that equality at the workplace and secure that no one is discriminated against due to gender, race and religion. Norway has pursued a progressive gender equality policy for a very long time, with the central goals enshrined in the Equality and Anti-discrimination Act. The latest measure is a requirement for 40% female representation on corporate boards. From a female perspective, gender equality policy has advanced significantly in Norway, which has been positive for society as well. It is necessary for both genders to be employed to maintain productivity in the economy. On the path to increased equality for women, there are indications that there has been too little focus on the challenges faced by boys and men. Boys are much more likely than girls to drop out of school. The trend in Norway is that fewer and fewer boys pursue higher education. Higher education has also become more gender-segregated. This could create a number of challenges over time and could affect the extent to which men and women will have the opportunity to find a life partner. We also see, among other challenges, that far more men than women commit suicide. To ensure broad support for gender equality measures in the future, it will be a challenge to show that progressive policy on gender equality is beneficial for both genders. Otherwise, there is a risk of significant push-back.

The Working Environment Act in Norway aims to ensure safe and healthy working conditions, protect employees from physical and psychological harm, and promote well-being at work. It covers areas such as working hours, employment contracts, workplace safety, and employee rights. The Act includes provisions to support a healthy work-life balance for employees. This encompasses regulations on working hours, rest periods, and leave entitlements, including parental leave. Employers are required to accommodate employees’ needs to balance work with family and personal responsibilities. The Act also recognizes the importance of a positive psychosocial work environment. Employers are obligated to address factors that may cause stress, burnout, or other mental health issues. This includes promoting a supportive and inclusive workplace culture, providing access to employee assistance programs, and taking steps to prevent and address workplace conflicts. The Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority (Arbeidstilsynet) is responsible for enforcing the Working Environment Act. Employers who fail to comply with the Act’s provisions may face inspections, fines, and other penalties. Employees also have the right to report violations and seek redress through legal channels. The Norwegian Working Environment Act imposes several legal duties on employers to treat employees fairly and with respect, aligning with ESG principles.

Norway does not have a general statutory minimum wage that applies to all workers. Instead, wages are determined through collective bargaining between employer associations and trade unions. This means that wage levels can vary depending on the sector and agreements. However, Norway has introduced minimum wages for nine specific industries that often employ foreign workers. These industries include: Cleaning, Electricians, Agriculture and horticulture and Hotels, restaurants, and catering. These regulations are intended to protect workers from exploitation and ensure fair wage conditions.

Many of the Norwegian regulations relevant to ESG over the past decade have resulted from EU initiatives. The Norwegian Transparency Act is an exception. The Act has parallels to the EU’s proposed CSRDDD directive but has not come as a direct consequence of this proposal. >The Norwegian Transparency Act has significant implications for human rights in the supply chain. The Act, which came into force on July 1, 2022, requires larger companies to conduct due diligence assessments to identify and address actual and potential negative impacts on fundamental human rights and decent working conditions. This also includes environmental impacts in the supply chain. The Act mandates that companies publicly disclose their due diligence assessments, making them easily accessible to the public. This increases transparency and accountability, ensuring that companies take necessary steps to stop, prevent, or mitigate negative impacts. Thus, the Transparency Act promotes respect for human rights and the environment throughout the supply chain, providing the public with access to information on how companies manage these challenges. There have so far not been any test cases brought against companies.

The Sami are the indigenous population of Norway and are protected by the Norwegian constitution and several other legal mechanisms. Article 108 of the Norwegian Constitution, which obliges state authorities to ‘facilitate conditions for the Sami people to secure and develop their language, culture, and community life. According to the Norwegian Human Rights Act § 2 no. 3, the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) applies as Norwegian law and thus serves as a constraint on administrative discretion. In case of conflict, the provisions of the convention take precedence over provisions in other legislation, cf. § 3. There have been several cases for the Norwegian Supreme Court concerning violations of Sami rights. The last case is the “Fosen – case”. The Fosen case involved the construction of wind farms on the Fosen peninsula in Norway, specifically the Storheia and Roan wind farms. The Sami reindeer herders argued that the construction violated their rights to enjoy their own culture, as protected under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This article ensures that ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities have the right to enjoy their own culture. The court declared the licenses for the wind farms invalid. Despite this ruling, the wind farms continued to operate, leading to protests and demands for the removal of the wind farms. The case highlights that tension between renewable energy development not only occurs in relationship to biodiversity, but also the protection of indigenous rights.

Norwegian market authorities, especially the Consumer Authority, have been active in enforcing rules against unsubstantiated sustainability claims in marketing. The Consumer Authority has sent advisory letters to several businesses, including clothing stores and chains, asking them to review and correct marketing that contains claims of environmental benefits. Additionally, they have conducted inspections where several businesses were found to have marketing that was in violation of the law.

The Consumer Authority has sent advisory letters to several businesses, including clothing stores and chains, asking them to review and correct marketing that contains claims of environmental benefits. Additionally, they have conducted inspections where several businesses were found to have marketing that was in violation of the law. Although it does not always result in fines, such cases can lead to businesses having to change their marketing and potentially face legal consequences if they do not comply with the requirements.

So far, it has not been necessary to prosecute companies to a significant extent in order to change marketing practices.

There is no specific statutory duty on directors in Norway to oversee environmental and social impacts, but general corporate governance principles encourage such oversight. The Norwegian Companies Act does not contain specific rules that directly impose responsibility on the CEO for sustainability and social issues. Generally, the CEO’s responsibility is to ensure the daily management of the company’s operations and follow the guidelines and instructions given by the board. This includes ensuring that the company’s accounts comply with laws and regulations, and that asset management is conducted in a reassuring manner. Although the Companies Act does not specifically mention sustainability and social issues, the board can choose to include these aspects in its guidelines and instructions to the CEO. This can be part of the company’s strategy and objectives, especially with the increasing focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in the business world. For larger Norwegian companies, it is important to be aware that the Norwegian Transparency Act applies. This means that companies must conduct due diligence assessments in accordance with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. This includes, among other things, an obligation to identify and assess actual and potential negative impacts on fundamental human rights and decent working conditions that the company has either caused or contributed to, or that are directly linked to the company’s business operations, products, or services through supply chains or business partners.

So far there has been no test cases brought against directors for presenting misleading information on environmental and social impact.

Norway has a close relationship with EU through the EEA-agreement which make Norway a part of the EU internal market, as consequence Norway has adopted the EU sustainable finance package. A part of this package is the EU taxonomy regulation (regulation (EU) 2020/852). The regulation establishes an overarching framework for determining the extent to which an economic activity can be considered sustainable. The purpose of the regulation is to establish a common understanding of which activities and investments can be regarded as sustainable. It aims to provide a common language and criteria for identifying activities that significantly contribute to environmental objectives, such as climate change mitigation and adaptation The taxonomy regulation must be seen in the context of the EU CSRD-directive. The CSRD Directive requires companies to report on how their activities align with the criteria set out in the EU Taxonomy Regulation. This means that companies must disclose the extent to which their economic activities are considered environmentally sustainable according to the taxonomy. These regulations must be seen in conjunction with the Norwegian Transparency Act, which requires larger Norwegian companies to report, identify and assess actual and potential negative impacts on fundamental human rights and decent working conditions that the company has either caused or contributed to. In sum, these regulations establish a comprehensive and robust framework for reporting on various ESG factors, including for financial institutions.

Yes, see the answer to the question above.

Norway has a surplus of electric energy, but due to changes in energy markets there is an incentive to export energy instead of storing energy which is possible for hydroelectric power. Electricity prices for households have varied significantly, and has quadrupled from 2012 to 2024. Wholesale prices have also increased, especially during periods of high demand and low production. From 2012 to 2024, wholesale prices are five times higher inn 2024 compared to 2012. Due to increasing electricity prices the awareness concerning energy consumption is growing. The obligation to conduct energy audits in large enterprises follows from § 8-5 of the Energy Act and is further regulated in the Energy Auditing Regulation. Its purpose is to promote energy efficiency in enterprises. The energy audit shall identify cost-effective energy efficiency measures and establish plans for implementing these measures. Obligations concerning energy efficiency and consumptions are closely linked to the development in EU. According to the Draghi-report that was presented for the EU-Commission in September 2024 EU companies face electricity prices that are 2-3 times those in the US. Natural gas prices paid are 4-5 times higher. Over the past five years, the EU has placed significant emphasis on ensuring energy accessibility, a priority that is anticipated to persist well into the future.

Employers are required to work actively, purposefully, and systematically to promote equality and prevent discrimination, including equal pay, in accordance with Sections 26 and 26a of the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act. All public enterprises and private employers who regularly employ more than 50 employees must carry out this work. Employers must conduct salary reviews and report on salary statistics to ensure transparency and fairness in salary policies. This includes identifying and addressing pay disparities between genders. In examining the overall earnings of women and men, notable differences in wages are observed. Extensive research has been conducted to identify the underlying causes of these disparities. The predominant factors contributing to the wage gap include the higher prevalence of part-time work among women and the unequal distribution of women and men across various professions. It is important to note that, to date, there has been no conclusive evidence indicating that these wage differences are a result of gender discrimination.

Yes, Norwegian businesses have legal obligations to report on modern slavery through the Norwegian Transparency Act. This law requires larger businesses to conduct due diligence assessments to ensure that human rights and decent working conditions are respected in their operations and supply chains.

The question about the future related to ESG will be answered from a Eurocentric perspective. Although ESG is undoubtedly important, it is still a development that largely has been politically driven based on a top-down approach. This has been a weakness in the initiative and in the EU’s Green Deal. Businesses often find ESG reporting challenging, viewing it more as an administrative burden than an added value with significant competitive advantage. The demand for sustainable products and services is relatively limited compared to price as a consumer incentive. If we look at how young people vote today, they vote for parties that do not have climate and sustainability as their core issues. The demand for sustainability is largely politically created and not driven by a need from consumers. If we fail to create added value directly for businesses related to ESG, there is a risk of significant push-back. A push-back we are likely already experiencing.

The European Union has significantly shifted its strategic focus towards enhancing European competitiveness and security. As part of this new direction, the EU aims to reduce administrative burdens on European businesses by 25%. A key component of this initiative is the recently introduced Omnibus package, which notably includes an 80% reduction in the number of businesses subject to the CSRD directive compared to the original scope.

This development is particularly striking given the EU’s previous lack of emphasis on administrative burdens when the directive was initially adopted just a few years ago. It may also be interpreted as an acknowledgment that ESG reporting has not delivered the anticipated added value. Regardless of the interpretation, this represents a setback for ESG initiatives at an European level. For ESG to succeed in creating genuine underlying demand and added value, it will need to be broadly mandated by all countries. Over the next 12 months, legal changes will focus on scaling down the scope of businesses required to comply with ESG reporting obligations and streamlining these requirements to minimize administrative burdens. This approach aims to maintain, and preferably increase, profitability for businesses.