a. Is there any statutory duty to implement net zero business strategies;

There is no statutory duty to implement net zero business strategies in Sweden. A duty to implement a climate change transition plan followed from Article 22 of the European Union (“EU”) Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (the “CS3D”). However, before the directive’s transposition deadline, that article was repealed through the so-called Omnibus I Directive (Directive 2026/470), which entered into force on 18 March 2026. Because of the Omnibus I Directive, the Swedish public inquiry for CS3D transposition received a new government mandate and will not propose legislation introducing climate change transition plan obligations for companies.

b. Is the use of carbon offsets to meet net zero or carbon neutral commitments regulated;

Yes. As a Member State of the EU, Sweden is part of the EU Emission Trading System (“ETS”). The ETS is designed to support the EU’s overall goal to reduce carbon emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, in line with the European Green Deal, the European Climate Law (Regulation 2021/1119) and the EU’s commitment to global climate action under the Paris Agreement. The system operates on the ‘cap and trade’ principle which covers around 40% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. Use of external offsets is not allowed under the ETS. However, emissions verified as captured and permanently stored in accordance with Directive 2009/31 (the “EU Carbon Capture and Storage Directive”), or emissions permanently chemically bound so that they will not be dispersed into the atmosphere under normal use, are treated as not emitted under the ETS.

Furthermore, at the end of 2024, the EU adopted Regulation (EU) 2024/3012 establishing a union certification framework for permanent carbon removals, carbon farming, carbon storage in products, and soil-emission reduction. The voluntary regime instituted by the Regulation seeks to boost certification of these emission reductions and contribute to the EU achieving its climate targets and common nationally determined contributions (“NDCs”) under the Paris Agreement. Certified outcomes may not be counted towards third party NDCs or international compliance schemes, and they cannot be used for compliance under the EU ETS.

A claim that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment due to carbon offset is now also considered an ‘unfair commercial practice’, as per the latest revision of the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Directive 2005/29), which is due for implementation in national law by 27 September 2026. Once the Swedish implementation legislation enters into force, which is expected in the first half of 2027, such claims will be prohibited under the Swedish Marketing Act (Sw. Marknadsföringslag (2008:486)).

Additionally, a judgment from the Supreme Administrative Court in case HFD 2018 ref. 55 is of some interest. The company concerned, which had incurred expenses for the purchase of carbon offsets, used this in the marketing of its products. The Supreme Administrative Court found that the company had the right to make deductions for the costs as marketing expenses under the Swedish Income Tax Act (Sw. Inkomstskattelag (1999:1229)).

c. Have there been any test cases brought against companies for undeliverable net zero strategies;

To the extent of our knowledge, no cases specifically regarding net zero strategies have been brought before Swedish courts. However, cases have been brought by Swedish authorities against unsubstantiated sustainability claims in relation to certain products, see Question 12.

d. Have there been any test cases brought against companies for their proportionate contribution to global levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs)?

To the extent of our knowledge, there have been no such cases in Sweden. There has, however, been one notable test case against the State. In NJA 2025 s. 88, an individual class action requested the Swedish Supreme Court to establish that Sweden had violated their rights under Articles 2, 3, 6, 8, and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the “ECHR”), as well as under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. The applicant’s claims closely mirrored those of the claimants in the landmark judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) in the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 53600/20.

However, the Swedish Supreme Court held the claimant’s action inadmissible. It acknowledged that, following KlimaSeniorinnen, Sweden under certain conditions was required under Article 6 of the Convention to allow claims as the one at hand to be assessed on the merits against the Convention, and found this compatible with the Swedish Constitution. As the claimant in the case was a private individual, and not an organisation, the Supreme Court assessed whether the claimant had demonstrated that they were “directly and personally affected” under the Convention, and applied the test prescribed in KlimaSeniorinnen. Finding that the claimant failed to demonstrate this, the Supreme Court concluded it was not required under Article 6 of the Convention to assess the applicant’s claims on the merits and held the action inadmissible.

Subsequently, the organisation behind the individual class action in NJA 2025 s. 88 has lodged a new lawsuit against the State – this time in its own name – on similar grounds as in the previous case. This new case is now pending before the Stockholm District Court (Sw. Stockholms tingsrätt), see further below under Question 22.

There is no general requirement to demonstrate a quantifiable biodiversity net gain to obtain consent. New projects are assessed under the Swedish Environmental Code (Sw. Miljöbalk (1998:808)), which is designed to promote sustainable development across multiple areas, including biodiversity. When it comes to consent for new projects and for land developments, the Swedish Environmental Code requires consideration of potential effects on biodiversity and the Code emphasizes the importance of protecting valuable natural and cultural environments. Projects impacting protected species or natural areas are assessed with heightened scrutiny. Where permits in these cases are granted, conditions related to the conservation of biodiversity may be imposed. Developers are normally required to conduct environmental impact assessments when their projects are likely to have significant environmental effects.

There is no general requirement for companies to report their water usage. Nevertheless, under the Swedish Environmental Code, activities that may have a significant impact on the environment are subject to reporting and permit requirements. This includes activities involving physical works in or affecting water areas or groundwater (Sw. vattenverksamhet), for which permits are typically required. These permits can include conditions related to monitoring and reporting of water use. The specifics of these requirements vary depending on the nature of the business, the amount of water used, and the potential impact on the environment.

It should further be noted that water usage reporting requirements will apply to operators performing activities listed in Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2024/1244 – certain industrial activities associated with higher environmental impacts. The requirements will apply from 1 January 2028 and usage data should then be reported in the Industrial Emissions Portal, which is under construction.

There have been some high-profile cases against companies for product liability or pollution of the environment related to PFAS, most notably Case NJA 2023 s. 916 of the Swedish Supreme Court regarding product liability related to PFAS-contaminated drinking water.

The case was brought by some 150 residents against Ronneby Miljö och Teknik AB, a company wholly owned by Ronneby municipality, which supplied drinking water to the urban areas in the municipality. The action was based on the Swedish Product Liability Act (Sw. Produktansvarslag (1992:18)), which transposes Directive 85/374, the “EU Product Liability Directive“, and concerned the company’s distribution of PFAS contaminated drinking water. The plaintiffs alleged personal injury due to PFAS exposure caused by the company’s distribution of PFAS contaminated drinking water and demanded that the company compensate them for personal injury.

In its judgment of 5 December 2023, the Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiffs suffered personal injury by elevated PFAS levels in their blood. Aligning the term “personal injury” in the Swedish Product Liability Act with that of the Swedish Tort Liability Act (Sw. Skadeståndslag (1972:207)), the Court emphasized the need for a tangible impairment of the body. It further underscored that an increased risk of future harm alone did not constitute personal injury. The Supreme Court nevertheless concluded that the contaminated water significantly impacted the plaintiffs’ bodies as “the considerable physical deterioration manifested in the high levels of PFAS in each appellant’s blood must be regarded as constituting an impairment which is a personal injury for the purposes of tort law”. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the company liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries. As the plaintiffs’ claim was limited to establishing liability in principle, the Supreme Court did not rule on the extent of the liability. Following NJA 2023 s. 916, multiple other residents of Ronneby municipality also sued Ronneby Miljö och Teknik AB, who in most cases settled by admitting unspecified liability. To our knowledge, no damages have yet been awarded by a court as a result of this case.

Worth mentioning is also case MÖD 2024:69, where the Swedish Land and Environment Court of Appeal held the Swedish armed forces liable for PFAS contamination in the local water supply. The Court ordered them to pay SEK 37 million in damages to a municipal water company for costs incurred in remediating the contamination.

Finally, the Swedish Chemical Agency (Sw. Kemikalieinspektionen) counts amongst the national authorities that jointly submitted a proposal for stricter EU PFAS legislation to the EU Chemicals Agency. A written opinion on the matter is due at the Agency’s Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis before the end of 2026. Based on this opinion, the European Commission will then design a proposal for restrictions on the use of PFAS chemicals.

Currently, there are no general obligations placed on producers, distributors, or retailers to ensure levels of recycling and/or incorporate a proportionate amount of recycled materials in product construction. However, from 12 August 2026, the directly applicable EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (Regulation 2025/40) (PPWR) will come into force. This regulation, which repeals Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste and amends Directive 2019/904 (“the Single-Use Plastics Directive”) on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, will introduce requirements on recyclability, set target for recycled content, and establish obligations for reuse and refill systems. It should be noted that many substantive requirements will only take effect at later stages, primarily from 2030.

Further, under the current regulatory framework, there is industry-specific legislation setting out responsibility of producers of e.g. packaging and of non-reusable products.

For instance, pursuant to the Swedish Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Packaging (Sw. Förordning (2022:1274) om producentansvar för förpackningar), transposing Directive 94/62 and partly Directive 2019/904, several duties are placed on producers of packaging, such as:

• Producers are required to limit unnecessary packaging;
• All packaging entering the Swedish market must be reusable or recyclable;
• Producers of plastic bottles made primarily from PET must include at least 25% recycled plastic from the beginning of 2025, unless their volume is above three liters or if they are produced for specific medical use;
• Plastic caps and lids on beverage bottles must remain attached;
• Producers must report annually to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency ( Naturvårdsverket), the amount of packaging provided on the Swedish market, including the amount of recycled plastic used in PET bottles.

Furthermore, according to the Swedish Ordinance on Single-use Products (Sw. Förordning (2021:996) om engångsprodukter), which partly transposes Directive 2019/904, fast food providers and providers of single-use cups, are obliged to offer the possibility to have their products served in a reusable box/cup and to take effective measures so that their boxes and cups can be reused several times. These obligations will also be affected by the PPWR, which introduces stricter requirements from 1 January 2030.

b. Are any duties placed on producers, distributors, or retailers of products to handle the end-of-life of the products placed on the market?

Producers, distributors, and retailers of certain products are responsible for end-of-life processes on a sector specific basis. This responsibility is complementary to general waste management obligations under the Swedish Environmental Code.

This includes products such as electrical and electronic equipment (including batteries), cars, and fishing equipment:

• Electrical and electronic equipment (including batteries): Producers and retailers of electrical and electronic equipment have obligations regarding end-of-life treatment for their products under several Swedish acts. These obligations are primarily derived from the Swedish transposition of the EU Directive (2012/19) (“WEEE Directive”) and from the directly applicable EU Battery Regulation (Regulation 2023/1542), complemented by Swedish supplementary legislation.

Central Swedish acts are the Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Electrical Equipment (Sw. Förordning (2022:1276) om producentansvar för elutrustning) – which implements the WEEE Directive – and – regarding batteries – the Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Batteries (Sw. Förordning (2008:834) om producentansvar för batterier). The latter has, to a large extent, been amended in light of the directly applicable EU Battery Regulation and is supplemented by the new Ordinance containing supplementary provisions to the EU Batteries Regulation (Sw. förordning (2025:813) med kompletterande bestämmelser till EU-förordning om batterier).

Under these acts, companies in scope are obliged to finance (or organize) treatment of electrical waste once their products reach end-of-life, provide a take-back service for old equipment, and ensure that any collected waste is disposed of in a sustainable manner. Companies are also required to register with national authorities prior to putting any products in scope on the Swedish market and must present yearly reports on the volume of sold and collected products. Many retailers (depending on size) face similar obligations and are required to offer in-store collection of small electronic waste and accept old products free of charge.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is the main point of contact for registration and annual reporting on how much waste has been collected and the quantity of new products that have been sold.

Processing of the collected products at the end of their life span is mainly regulated in Swedish law through the Waste Ordinance (Sw. Avfallsförordning (2020:614)) and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s instructions on professional storage and treatment of electrical waste covered by producer responsibility (Sw. Föreskrifter om yrkesmässig lagring och behandling av elavfall som omfattas av producentansvar (NFS 2018:11)).

Any such waste processing activities require entities in scope to register with national authorities, normally municipal committees (Sw. kommunala nämnder) or the County Administrative Board (Sw. Länsstyrelsen). The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency also issue further guidelines on the required reporting for processing and storing electrical and electronic waste which are publicly available.

• Cars: Producers of cars in, and importers of cars to, Sweden are subject to obligations concerning the end-of-life treatment of the concerned vehicles. These responsibilities are primarily derived from the Swedish transposition of the EU End-of-Life Vehicles (“ELVs”) Directive (2000/53), which sets requirements for vehicle collection, dismantling and recycling. Some central national acts include the Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Vehicles ( Förordning (2023:132) om producentansvar för bilar) and the Vehicle Scrapping Ordinance (Sw. Bilskrotningsförordning (2007:186)). Under these ordinances, Swedish companies in scope, or an authorised representative for foreign companies (Sw. Producentombud), must ensure compliance regarding the treatment of ELVs.

Obligations under Swedish law include financing or organizing collection and treatment systems in which at least 95% of each car’s weight should be recycled or reused. Companies must also inform car buyers about vehicle disposal options and participate in vehicle take-back systems. Entities handling ELVs must comply with the Waste Ordinance and final dismantling must be undertaken by an authorized vehicle dismantler. Authorized vehicle dismantlers must register with municipal or county authorities and comply with storage and treatment requirements.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is the main authority for registration, and reporting and ensuring that ELVs are processed in accordance with Swedish law. Companies that put vehicles on the Swedish market must also report annually to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency on how they fulfill their obligations according to the Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Vehicles.

It should be noted that the EU is about to replace the End‑of‑Life Vehicles Directive with a directly applicable Regulation on circularity requirements for vehicle design and the management of ELVs. In December 2025, the European Parliament and the Council reached a provisional political agreement. Once the act is formally adopted and published in the Official Journal, it will repeal Directives 2000/53/EC and 2005/64/EC and introduce, among other measures, requirements on recycled plastic content in vehicles after a transition period, tightened rules to address “missing vehicles,” and a clearer distinction between used vehicles and ELVs. At the time of writing, publicly available parliamentary materials indicate the file is in its final stages following the provisional agreement. The Regulation will start to apply two years after its entry into force.

• Fishing equipment: Producers and distributors of fishing nets and other plastic-based fishing tools such as buoys, and importers of such products into Sweden, are subject to obligations concerning the end-of-life treatment of their products. Responsibilities for end-of-life fishing equipment are primarily derived from the Single-Use Plastics Directive. A central piece of legislation in the transposition of this Directive, regarding the fishing industry, is the Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Fishing Equipment ( Förordning (2021:1001) om producentansvar för fiskeredskap).

Under the current legislation, producers must ensure that a quota of end-of-life equipment is collected, treated, and reported to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. They must also participate in a producer responsibility organization or establish one in compliance with national law. Producers must then register with the Environmental Protection Agency and submit annual reports on the amount of fishing equipment placed on the market and collected for waste management by the relevant producer responsibility organization. Entities handling fishing gear waste in general must also comply with the Waste Ordinance.

Producers, distributors, and retailers of certain other products (e.g. tires, balloons, tobacco-products, and wet wipes) are also to a varying extent responsible for end-of-life treatment of their products. Further information regarding these obligations is available at the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.

 As noted under Question 5, the PPWR will apply from 12 August 2026 and will, over time, introduce further obligations relevant to plastics, including mandatory deposit and return systems, recycled content requirements for plastic packaging, packaging waste reduction targets, and restrictions on certain single-use plastic packaging formats. Many of these obligations will be phased in gradually, with key deadlines occurring between 2029 and 2030.

Under the current regulatory framework, rules concerning plastics in Sweden are dispersed across various acts and ordinances, notably the following:

• Mandatory return systems

The Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Packaging sets out a mandatory return system for beverage containers, specifically for plastic bottles and metal cans, intended for the Swedish market. It requires producers that professionally bottle or import beverages in such containers to ensure their inclusion in a recognized return system, with an exemption for dairy products (which is set to expire in 2029). The Ordinance defines the term ‘plastic’ as polymer that can be used as the main structural component in final products and the term ‘polymer’ is defined in alignment with the EU REACH Regulation (Regulation 1907/2006).

• Ban on certain single-use products

The Ordinance on Single-use Products (see also above Question 5) aims to reduce littering and promote a circular economy by regulating single-use products in Sweden. Additionally, producers of single-use products are covered by the Ordinance on Littering Fees (Sw. Förordning (2021:1002) om nedskräpningsavgifter). To cover municipal costs for cleaning up products that end up as litter producers pay both a variable product fee and a fixed annual fee. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency conducts periodic surveys on litter in outdoor environments to ascertain how much of each product category is contributing to littering. This data is then used to calculate each product category’s share of cleanup costs, which producers pay according to the number of single-use units they place on the Swedish market.

Definitions within the Ordinance on Single-use Products clarify terms such as polymers, plastics, and various types of single-use items, including cups, food containers, and plastic bags. A significant aspect of the Ordinance is the prohibition of certain single-use plastic products, such as cotton swabs, expanded polystyrene containers, cutlery, and plates. It mandates that alternatives to single-use cups and food containers must be offered, with a focus on reusable options, and sets a target to reduce the consumption of single-use plastic cups and food containers by 50% by 2026 compared to 2022 levels. The Ordinance also includes requirements for labelling and consumer information to encourage responsible disposal and reduce littering.

Additional provisions can be found in other ordinances concerning waste from specific products like packaging, tobacco, balloons and wet wipes (Sw. Förordning (2021:998) om producentansvar för vissa tobaksvaror och filter, Förordning om producentansvar för ballonger (2021:999) and Förordning om producentansvar för våtservetter (2021:1000)).

The Swedish Act on Tax on Plastic Carrier Bags (Sw. Lag (2020:32) om skatt på plastbärkassar) was repealed on 1 November 2024.

In Sweden, the legal obligations for employers regarding EDI in the workplace are primarily governed by the Discrimination Act (Sw. Diskrimineringslag (2008:567)), which aims to combat discrimination and promote equal rights and opportunities regardless of gender, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, religion or other belief, disability, sexual orientation, or age.

Key Provisions of the Discrimination Act

• Prohibition of Discrimination: Employers may not discriminate against employees, job applicants, trainees, trainee applicants or hired/temporary workers on any of the grounds mentioned above (with certain limited exemptions). However, the prohibition of discrimination in terms of lack of accessibility does not apply in relation to a person who merely makes a request for work. Discrimination can be direct, such as treating someone less favorably because of their age, or indirect, such as implementing a policy that disproportionately affects a certain group without a legitimate aim.

• The obligation to investigate and act: Employers are required to investigate and take such actions as may reasonably be required to prevent future harassment, in case of knowledge of harassment related to any of the discrimination grounds or sexual harassment.

• Active Measures: Employers are required to take active measures to promote equal rights and opportunities in the workplace. This involves regular analysis of the work environment to identify risks of discrimination, taking steps to prevent harassment, and promoting equal employment opportunities for all, especially in recruitment, training, and promotions.
• Victimization: The Discrimination Act also protects employees from victimization, which refers to adverse treatment of an individual who has made a complaint about discrimination or has participated in an investigation of such a complaint.
• Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities: Employers must ensure that the workplace is accessible to people with disabilities, which may involve making reasonable adjustments to the work environment or providing support that enables the persons concerned to carry out their work.

Employer Responsibilities

• Policy Implementation: Employers must implement policies that outline their commitment to EDI and the steps they will take to ensure a non-discriminatory work environment.
• Training and Awareness: Employers must provide training to all staff, including management, on EDI issues to raise awareness and ensure that the principles of non-discrimination are understood and applied.
• Documentation and Follow-up: Employers are required to document their EDI efforts and the results of these efforts. The Equality Ombudsman (Sw. Diskrimineringsombudsmannen), the government agency responsible for monitoring compliance with the Discrimination Act, may request a copy of this documentation.

Enforcement and Compliance

The Equality Ombudsman is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Discrimination Act and ensures its enforcement. Employers who fail to comply with their obligations under the Act may face legal action, which may result in orders to take corrective measures and/or financial penalties.

While there are no explicit provisions in Swedish law stating that employers shall treat employees fairly and with respect, there are several acts to that effect.

Work Environment Act

The Swedish Work Environment Act (Sw. Arbetsmiljölag (1977:1160)) places a duty on employers to provide a safe working environment that prevents bad health and accidents. The Act covers various aspects of the work environment, including:

• Physical working conditions,
• Psychological and social working conditions,
• Opportunities for personal development and training, and
• Prevention of work-related injuries and illnesses

Discrimination Act

See Question 7.

Co-Determination at Work Act

The Swedish Co-Determination at Work Act (Sw. Lag (1976:580) om medbestämmande i arbetslivet) is a law that provides employees with the right to influence the work environment and the terms of employment. It establishes the framework for negotiations between employers and trade unions and includes provisions for employee participation in decision-making processes.

Annual Leave Act

The Swedish Annual Leave Act (Sw. Semesterlag (1977:480)) ensures that employees are entitled to annual leave. It goes further than the minimum requirements set by the EU Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88). The Annual Leave Act stipulates a minimum of 25 paid vacation days that employees are entitled to each year. The Working Time Directive stipulates a minimum of 20 paid vacation days.

Parental Leave Act

In June 2019, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted the Work-life Balance Directive (Directive 2019/1158). According to the Work-Life Balance Directive, each parent is entitled to at least four months of parental leave. At least two of these months are non-transferable between parents. Since Sweden largely already met the requirements of the Directive, only a few legislative changes have been necessary.

The Swedish Parental Leave Act (Sw. Föräldraledighetslag (1995:584)) sets out rights for working parents to take parental leave. Swedish social security offers a world-leading number of paid parental leave days, with the State, and not the employer, carrying the cost, under conditions set out in the Swedish Social Insurance Code (Sw. Socialförsäkringsbalken (2010:110)). Parents are allowed a combined total of 480 paid leave days/child to be divided between the parents. The allowance for 390 of these days is based on the income of the parent taking the leave, while the allowance for the other 90 days is set to a minimum level of 180 SEK/day (approx. 15-16 EUR/day). If the parents have shared custody, 90 days are reserved for each parent, while the rest may be divided as the parents see fit. This means that three months, instead of two months (compared to the Work-Life Balance Directive) are not transferable between parents. Additionally, parents are entitled to paid parental leave in connection with childbirth, adoption, and when caring for an ill child.

In Sweden, a specific living wage is not explicitly mandated by law. Sweden has a well-established tradition of collective bargaining agreements that play a significant role in determining wages and which go back to the beginning of the 20th century. These agreements are negotiated between trade unions and employers or employers’ associations and are legally binding for the signatory parties. A large proportion of the Swedish workforce is covered by collective agreements.

The Directive (EU) 2022/2041 on Adequate Minimum Wages (the “Minimum Wage Directive”) mandates adequate minimum wages in the EU. However, Sweden fulfils the alternative requirements provided for in the Directive, by having a sufficiently high proportion of the workforce being covered by collective agreements. Therefore, Sweden is not required to implement a minimum wage under the Directive.

On 11 November 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU“) delivered its judgment in Case C-19/23, Denmark v European Parliament and Council. Denmark had brought an action seeking primarily to annul the Directive in its entirety, arguing that it infringed the principle of conferral of powers and Article 153(5) TFEU by interfering directly with the determination of the level of pay. The CJEU rejected Denmark’s principal claims for annulment of the Directive in its entirety. However, the Court partially annulled certain provisions of Article 5, specifically the words “including the elements referred to in paragraph 2” in the fifth sentence of Article 5(1), Article 5(2), and the clause in Article 5(3) preventing a decrease of statutory minimum wages through automatic indexation. The Court annulled those parts because they forced Member States to follow specific inputs and barred certain outcomes when setting minimum wages, amounting to an impermissible, direct intervention in wage-setting and thus an intrusion into pay, falling outside the competence of the EU under Article 153(5) TFEU.

a. Are there any statutory duties to perform due diligence;

Currently, there are no statutory duties in Swedish law to perform due diligence in relation to human rights or the environment. However, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, mentioned under Question 1(a), contains extensive due diligence requirements to identify and address actual and potential adverse impacts on human rights and the environment. The so-called Omnibus I Directive, which entered into force on 18 March 2026, amended several parts of the CS3D. The due diligence obligation now only applies to companies with more than 5,000 employees and a global net turnover exceeding EUR 1.5 billion, including non-EU corporations with corresponding turnover generated in the EU.

One of the most significant changes provided in the Omnibus I Directive concerns the scope of the due diligence requirements. Under the amended framework, companies are no longer expected to systematically monitor adverse impacts throughout the entire value chain as a general and continuous obligation. Instead, the new approach adopts a more targeted and risk-based model. Companies are primarily required to conduct due diligence in relation to their own operations, their subsidiaries, and their direct business partners (tier-1 suppliers). This entails conducting an initial screening, based on reasonably available information, to identify areas where adverse impacts are most likely to arise. Where the screening reveals areas with the highest likelihood or severity of adverse impacts, companies must undertake a more detailed assessment. They are only required to request information from business partners when doing so is necessary and the information cannot reasonably be obtained from other sources. For business partners with fewer than 5,000 employees, companies should request information only if it cannot reasonably be obtained by other means.

Companies are required to prioritise adverse impacts according to their severity and likelihood. Since such impacts may need to be addressed progressively, companies should not be subject to sanctions where it is not possible to address all identified adverse impacts simultaneously and in full, provided that they act in accordance with the Directive’s prioritisation approach. In cases where serious adverse impacts are linked to a supplier and cannot be remedied despite due diligence efforts, companies may suspend the business relationship as a last resort while continuing to seek a resolution. Companies are required to engage with affected stakeholders, such as workers, trade unions, or communities, only when those stakeholders are directly impacted by the relevant stage of the due diligence process. To reduce administrative burdens, the Commission is to issue general due diligence guidelines by July 2027, and the Directive’s full application to all companies within its scope will be postponed until 26 July 2029.

However, the CS3D does not include specific provisions to prevent products produced with forced labour from entering the internal market, made available within the EU, or being exported from the Union. In addition, it does not apply to small or medium sized enterprises. This gap is partly addressed by Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 (the “Forced Labour Regulation”) which will enter into force in 2027 and introduces a legal framework encompassing not only companies’ direct operations but also indirect operations in their supply chains. The Forced Labour Regulation applies to all companies irrespective of size but does not itself impose due diligence requirements on economic operators regarding forced labour; such requirements following from the CS3DThe Commission is expected to issue guidelines for businesses and authorities by June 2026, clarifying how the Regulation should be applied in practice.

Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 (the “Deforestation Regulation” or “EUDR”) has been postponed following amendments adopted in 2025. The EUDR is now set to apply from 30 December 2026 for large and medium-sized companies, and for small and micro-enterprises handling products previously covered by the EU Timber Regulation, and from 30 June 2027 for other small and micro-enterprises that trade in relevant products or commodities. The objective of the Regulation is to prevent products made from certain commodities (e.g., wood, cattle, palm oil, cocoa and coffee) to be placed or made available on the internal market or from being exported unless they are deforestation free. To ensure effectiveness, actors in scope must perform comprehensive due diligence to verify compliance. Deforestation free products in this context refers to goods that have been produced in accordance with the relevant laws of the country of production, are covered by a due diligence statement and do not contribute to deforestation or forest degradation. Unlike many other EU sustainability frameworks, the EUDR will in principle apply to all EU actors regardless of their turnover, balance sheet size, or employee count, including natural persons. The extent of the due diligence obligations is determined by both the activities and the size of the entity, reflecting a wider EU objective to limit the administrative burden for smaller businesses as recently confirmed by the Commission’s Omnibus packages. The obligations under the EUDR attach to individual companies, irrespective of group structures. Within organisations, the obligations of subsidiaries must therefore be assessed individually based on the subsidiaries’ separate operations, turnover, and number of employees, rather than by reference to the group’s consolidated figures. Actors in scope may, however, appoint a representative, which must be established in the EU, to submit and manage due diligence statements on their behalf to centralise the administrative burden. The amended Regulation also contains additional simplifications, for example regarding the responsibility to submit a due diligence statement and a simplified declaration for micro and small primary operators. In addition, the Commission is required to conduct a further simplification review and present a report by end of April 2026.

b. Have there been any test cases brought against companies?

There has been one high-profile civil case in Sweden concerning human rights in the supply chain, although it did not (directly) concern the obligation to perform due diligence. The case, which concerned waste management in mining operations, involved Arica Victims, a Swedish company representing 796 Chilean citizens, and Boliden Mineral AB, a Swedish mining and smelting company. The plaintiffs claimed that Boliden’s export of 20,000 tons of smelting waste, allegedly containing arsenic and other heavy metals, to Chile in the mid-1980s had caused environmental and health damages to the residents in the Polygono area. The defendant argued that it acted in accordance with the applicable laws and standards at the time, and that it was not responsible for any insufficient waste management by its Chilean contractor, Promel, that oversaw the storage and refining of the waste on site in Chile.

The case was first heard by The Skellefteå District Court (Sw. Skellefteå tingsrätt), which in its judgment of 8 March 2018 (case T 1012-13) dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim against Boliden on two grounds. Firstly, the court found that the plaintiffs did not establish damages of sufficient severity – as many individuals did not exhibit arsenic levels above the threshold of 100 μg per litre of urine. Secondly, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a causal link between Boliden’s waste in Arica and the arsenic levels detected in the urine of residents, even when levels exceeded the threshold, thus excluding any remaining individuals represented by Arica Victims.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal for Upper Norrland (Sw. Hovrätten för Övre Norrland). In its judgment of 27 March 2019 (case T 294-18), the Court of Appeal applied Swedish tort law instead of Chilean tort law, contrary to what was done in District Court proceedings. The Court of Appeal found that Arica Victims’ claim was time-barred under Swedish law, which has a ten-year statute of limitations for civil claims. Arica Victims appealed to the Supreme Court, which did not grant leave to appeal.

Further, the criminal case against former executives of Swedish petroleum company Lundin Oil, now part of AkerBP, can be mentioned in this context. A former president and a former CEO stand accused of aiding and abetting widespread crimes against international human rights law – including murder and forceful removal of civilians – in southern Sudan during the years of 1999-2003, in connection with Lundin Oil’s exploration projects in the region. See further under Question 22.

a. Are there any statutory duties to perform due diligence?

The Swedish legal order contains legislation protecting human rights, the environment, and the rights of indigenous populations, such as the Sámi people. This framework is based both on national legislation and on international agreements to which Sweden is a party.

• Environmental Law: Companies operating in Sweden must comply with the Environmental Code, which includes conducting environmental impact assessments for activities that may have a significant impact on the environment. In addition, the Deforestation Regulation (discussed in detail above under Question 10(a)) is relevant to host communities and indigenous populations, as the due diligence process is specifically aimed at minimising the circulation of goods related to deforestation, which can affect the rights of such communities.
• Human Rights: Sweden is a signatory to various international conventions, including the ECHR. The ECHR is applicable as Swedish law pursuant to the Swedish Act on the European Convention on Human Rights (Sw. Lag (1994:1219) om den europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna). Additionally, as an EU Member State, Sweden is bound by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Instrument of Government (Sw. Regeringsformen (1974:152)), which is a central part of the Swedish Constitution, also contains a catalogue of fundamental rights that protect human rights and freedoms.
• Rights of Indigenous Populations: The Sámi people, an indigenous population in Sweden, have specific rights recognized by Swedish law such as the Reindeer Husbandry Act (Sw. Rennäringslag (1971:437)) and the Sámi Parliament Act (Sw. Sametingslag (1992:1433)). These laws are related to land use, cultural preservation and political representation. Furthermore, the Consultation Act for Questions regarding the Sámi People (Sw. Lag (2022:66) om konsultation i frågor som rör det samiska folket) stipulates that governmental and administrative decisions that impact the Sámi people (e.g. impacts on reindeer herding) should be preceded by consultations, primarily, with the Sámi Parliament (Sw. Sametinget). If the decision concerned specifically impacts a Sámi village, that village must also be consulted. Records must be kept by the public authority which partakes in the consultation, and they are obliged to try to reach an agreement with the Sámi representatives. However, certain decisions, such as court judgments or decisions motivated by public order and security or defence, fall outside of the scope of application of the Consultation Act and the Act does not give the Sámi people any veto rights. It should also be mentioned that the EU is part of the international process of promoting and protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights and the EU supported the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”) in 2007 as well as the Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in 2014.
• Rights for national minorities: Pursuant to the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages (Sw. Lag (2009:724) om nationella minoriteter och minoritetsspråk), Sweden recognizes five national minorities, which are the Sámi, Swedish Finns, Tornedalers, Roma, and Jewish people. These groups are recognised as having a historical presence in Sweden and distinctive cultural identities. The rights of these minorities include the right to education and communication with authorities in their minority languages, as well as measures to preserve and develop their cultural heritage.

b. Have there been any test cases brought against companies?

There have been several instances where Sámi villages have filed lawsuits against inter alia wind power projects for encroachment on their traditional lands and negative impacts on their reindeer herding practices. These cases often involve complex issues of indigenous rights, environmental law and commercial interests.

In HFD 2024 not. 36, the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden conducted a judicial review (rättsprövning) under the Judicial Review Act (rättsprövningslagen, 2006:304) of the Swedish Government’s March 2022 decision to grant a mining concession under the Minerals Act (minerallagen, 1991:45) to Jokkmokk Iron Mines AB for the Kallak K nr 1 iron ore deposit in Jokkmokk municipality, northern Sweden, located near the Laponia World Heritage Site and within Sámi reindeer herding territories. The Government had determined that the area constituted a national interest (riksintresse) for both mineral extraction and reindeer herding, but that these interests were irreconcilable. The Government afforded priority to mining on account of anticipated socio-economic benefits, subject to mitigating conditions including consultation obligations, protection of migration routes, and compensatory measures for affected Sámi communities.

The Sámi communities and environmental organisations applied for judicial review, challenging the decision on grounds of governmental bias, inadequacy of the environmental impact assessment, improper exclusion of transport infrastructure from the review, and violations of domestic and international law protecting Sámi cultural rights. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed all claims, holding that no lack of impartiality was established, that ancillary matters such as ore transport need not be assessed at the concession stage, and that both the environmental assessment and the national interest designation fell within the Government’s broad margin of discretion.

Another famous case is the Girjas case (NJA 2020 s.3) that is a landmark Swedish Supreme Court decision on Sámi indigenous land rights. The Girjas Sámi reindeer-herding community sued the Swedish State for the exclusive right to control hunting and fishing on its traditional mountain lands in northern Sweden. The Court ruled in favor of the community, finding that the Sámi had used these lands since time immemorial – long before Swedish State sovereignty – and had therefore acquired exclusive rights to grant hunting and fishing permits through prescriptive use (urminnes hävd). It was the first time that Sweden’s highest court recognized that a Sámi community holds stronger resource-management rights than the State on traditional Sámi territory.

The Swedish Consumer Ombudsman (Sw. Konsumentombudsmannen) and the Swedish Advertising Ombudsman (Sw. Reklamombudsmannen) have brought several cases against unsubstantiated sustainability claims and the patent and market courts (Sw. Patent- och marknadsdomstolarna) have found several of them to be prohibited. Generally, the businesses have the burden of proof that the claims are accurate (Sw. vederhäftighet). The patent and market courts have held that the threshold for accuracy regarding sustainability statements in marketing is high. This means e.g. that consumers must have access, in direct proximity to the sustainability claim, to information explaining the contents of the claim.

For instance, in the judgment of 23 February 2023 in PMT 17372-21, the Patent and Market Court prohibited a major Swedish milk-producer from using the expression “net zero carbon footprint” on milk packaging, mainly because the net zero carbon footprint would be achieved 100 years after the emission event.

Furthermore, in a judgment of 5 September 2022, in PMT 1782-21, the Consumer Ombudsman had challenged the use of certain claims and certifications by a Swedish organic food retailer in its marketing, as being vague and potentially misleading regarding the ecological and organic content of the products. The claims and certifications included “Cosmos Organic” and “Ecocert Cosmos Organic”. The Patent and Market Court of Appeal ruled that references to eco-labels/environmental certifications create the impression that the goods have a positive impact on the environment. Since the trader had not demonstrated that consumers had received information explaining the impact, the marketing was considered misleading and unfair.

The Swedish Advertising Ombudsman found in a decision of 6 December 2024 (case 2410-154), that the advertisement concerned contained a misleading environmental claim contrary to Articles 5 and D1 of the International Chamber of Commerce’s Rules for Advertising and Marketing Communication (the “ICC rules”). The advertisement had appeared on the advertiser’s website with a sub-heading “Eco-friendly filling and protection material”, where two products were displayed. According to the Advertising Ombudsman, the claim was vague and non-specific. The Ombudsman further pointed out that such claims must be substantiated in all their obvious meanings. The advertiser had not provided any evidence in support of this, and the Advertising Ombudsman therefore found that advertisement contained a misleading environmental claim in breach of the ICC rules.

More recently, the Swedish Advertising Ombudsmanthat environmental claims on an egg packaging were misleading under the ICC rules (Arts. 5 and D2). The packaging was marketed with “Sustainable Choice” and as well as “45% lower climate impact”, “fossil‑free cultivation” and “biodiversity”. The Advertising Ombudsman considered the generic sustainability claim vague, the qualifications insufficiently clear or proximate, and the substantiation inadequate to support the broad overall impression. The advertising was therefore held misleading in line with the ICC rules.

In addition, it is worth noting the amendments to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Swedish Marketing Act with regard to sustainability claims, as mentioned under Question 1(b). Apart from claims related to carbon offsetting, it will also be prohibited to make general environmental claims regarding a product or business when in fact only parts of the product or business are concerned. Additionally, the Marketing Act will prohibit generic environmental claims which the trader is not able to sufficiently substantiate.

The Swedish Competition Authority (“SCA”) monitors the areas of competition, public procurement and unfair trading practices in the food supply chain. To the extent of our knowledge, the SCA has not taken any action against, fined or prosecuted any businesses for unsubstantiated claims relating to products or services. However, the Consumer Ombudsman (Sw. Konsumentombudsmannen), has brought several cases against unsubstantiated sustainability claims. For instance, a case was brought against Mercedes-Benz Sverige AB for using the expression ‘environmentally friendly’ in an advert for a passenger car (MD 2011:12). The claim, which was not considered to fulfil the requirements of clarity and precision, was considered contrary to good marketing practice under Section 5, misleading under Section 10 and unfair under Sections 6 and 8 of the Swedish Marketing Act. Mercedes-Benz was prohibited from using the claim.

At the EU level, Coca Cola and Nestlé Waters agreed to correct misleading claims about recycled content and environmental benefits of its plastic bottles. The issue, first raised by the European Consumer Organisation, prompted a coordinated enforcement action led by the Swedish Consumer Agency and other EU authorities. As a result of the enforcement action, Coca-Cola and Nestlé Waters made public on 6 May 2025 a commitment to updating their packaging and digital marketing within set deadlines to ensure compliance with EU law.

To the extent of our knowledge, no such cases have been brought in Sweden. Reference can be made to Question 1(c) and the therein mentioned Swedish court case concerning the use of the term “carbon dioxide-free” by a Swedish company. It should be noted that the proceedings were not directly related to sustainability commitments, but they did revolve around the commercial use of sustainability-related terminology. Furthermore, similar cases are often brought before Swedish courts as an effect of the intervention of Swedish authorities, for example the Swedish Consumer Ombudsman, see Question 12.

There is no such explicit duty. However, it can be noted that under the Swedish Companies Act (Sw. Aktiebolagslag (2005:551)), the board is responsible for the company’s organisation and the management of affairs, definitions that are to be interpreted broadly, which therefore in practice encompasses risk management and legal compliance.

Further, as stated under Question 17 below, pursuant to the Annual Accounts Act (Sw. Årsredovisningslag (1995:1554)), companies of a certain size are required to prepare a sustainability report. The sustainability report, which inter alia shall address the company’s environmental and social impact, is part of the annual report of a company. Pursuant to the Annual Accounts Act, board members and the CEO are responsible for the contents of the reports.

In addition, board members and the CEO of a company may be held personally liable for the performance of his or her duties, if he/she intentionally or negligently causes damage to the company or, just as any individual, if he/she commits a criminal act, for instance participates in a decision that results in an environmental crime being committed. Hence, arguably, there is a certain duty implied for board members and CEOs to oversee environmental and social impacts.

To the extent of our knowledge, no such cases have been brought before the Swedish courts. Responsibility for claims in company reports is dealt with under question 17, below.

Financial institutions and large or listed corporates in Sweden are subject to mandatory reporting on sustainable investment criteria. This obligation derives primarily from EU legislative acts, which have been implemented in Swedish law and whose application is monitored by the Financial Supervisory Authority (Sw. Finansinspektionen). The general framework for these requirements is set out in the Annual Accounts Act.

Under Chapter 6 of the Annual Accounts Act, which implements the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive 2022/2464 (“CSRD”), larger companies are required to prepare annual sustainability reports. The contents of that chapter shall cover environmental, social, and employee-related matters, respect for human rights, anti-corruption, and bribery issues. The sustainability chapter must further include a description of the business model, policies, due diligence processes, outcomes, and risks related to the discussed areas. The board of the respective company is responsible for the contents of the annual report. Thus, the board’s responsibility also covers information disclosed in the specific chapter of the annual report regarding sustainability. See further under Question 18 below.

However, the scope of these reporting obligations under the CSRD has been significantly narrowed down following the adoption of the Omnibus I Directive, mentioned above under Questions 1(a) and 10(a). Following the reforms introduced by the Omnibus I Directive, companies are now required to report only if they meet both of the following criteria during the financial year:

• an average of more than 1,000 employees, and
• net turnover exceeding EUR 450 million.

Companies, groups, and issuers falling below these thresholds remain free to carry out voluntary sustainability reporting. For companies from third countries operating in the EU, the updated rules apply only if the parent company generates more than EUR 450 million in net turnover within the EU and the EU-based subsidiary or branch generates more than EUR 200 million in net turnover. Certain financial holding companies within and outside the EU may also benefit from exemptions from consolidated sustainability reporting requirements.

Sweden’s transposition of the CSRD on 1 July 2024 meant that the first wave (listed large companies and other public-interest entities with more than 500 employees, including relevant financial undertakings) applied the new rules for the first time for financial years beginning on or after 1 July 2024. Under the Omnibus I Directive, CSRD reporting requirements were postponed by two years for large companies that had not yet begun reporting, as well as for listed SMEs. The postponement was set out in a “stop-the-clock” Directive adopted on 14 April 2025, which entered into force on 17 April 2025 (Directive 2025/794) and had to be implemented by Member States by 31 December 2025. First wave companies that were originally required to begin reporting for the 2024 financial year may be exempt from reporting in 2025 and 2026 if they fall outside the newly defined scope. Member States have one year to implement most of the provisions of the Omnibus I Directive, with certain exceptions relating to harmonisation provisions that must be applied by July 2028. Sweden has implemented the corresponding postponements in the Annual Accounts Act with effect from 31 December 2025. Following the amendments, the later waves are deferred. Second wave companies (other large companies and parent companies of large groups as defined under the CSRD) will have to start reporting for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027. Undertakings that would have been in the second wave will no longer be required to report if they do not meet the new 1,000 employees and EUR 450 million net-turnover tests. Third‑wave companies (SME‑listed issuers, small and non‑complex institutions and captive insurers) will have to start reporting for financial years starting on or after 1 January 2028. This means that the third-wave companies’ first reporting is deferred to a later financial year, but the definition remains the same.

See answer to Question 17. Further, regarding sustainable investment criteria specific to the financial sector, pursuant to Regulation 2019/2088 on sustainability‐related disclosures in the financial services sector (the “SFDR”), financial market participants shall publish information on their websites about their policies on the integration of sustainability risks in their investment decision‐making process.

The Annual Accounts Act further requires undertakings to report on their transition plans for climate change mitigation, including the anticipated financial effects from material physical and transition risks, in line with the CSRD. These disclosures aim to provide an understanding of how climate risks could materially influence the undertaking’s financial position, performance, and cash flows over the short, medium, and long term. Additionally, businesses should also disclose material impacts, risks, and opportunities, including those related to climate change, and their interaction with the undertaking’s strategy and business model.

Under the current rules, the Swedish Act on Energy Auditing for Large Companies (Sw. Lag (2014:266) om energikartläggning i stora företag) requires companies with at least 250 employees and an annual turnover exceeding EUR 50 million or an annual balance sheet total exceeding EUR 43 million, to carry out an energy audit at least every four years.

However, the current regime is set to be replaced by new legislation. A Government inquiry published in July 2025 proposes a new Act on Energy Management Systems and Energy Audits in Companies (Sw. Lag om energiledningssystem och energikartläggningar i företag), intended to implement parts of the revised EU Energy Efficiency Directive (Directive 2023/1791). The new rules were proposed to enter into force on 1 July 2026.

Most notably, the scope criterion shifts from company size to actual energy consumption. Companies with an average annual energy consumption exceeding 85 terajoules (over the preceding three years) will generally be required to implement an energy management system, while those exceeding 10 terajoules will be required to carry out energy audits at least every four years.

A further proposed change is the requirement for companies subject to the energy audit obligation to prepare a concrete and feasible action plan based on the recommendations of the audit. Through a proposed amendment to the Annual Accounts Act, the action plan must be published in the company’s annual report, and the management report (Sw. förvaltningsberättelsen) must describe the audit recommendations and their implementation progress. These requirements apply from the financial year commencing after 31 December 2026. Companies conducting energy audits within a certified energy or environmental management system are supposed to be exempted from this annual report obligation. Companies exceeding the applicable thresholds must also notify the Swedish Energy Agency and report on their actual energy consumption, the effects of energy efficiency measures taken, and the industry in which they are active.

In practical terms, the consumption-based criterion may capture smaller companies with high energy use that were previously outside scope, while large companies with low consumption may fall outside it. The new public disclosure requirements will increase transparency and enable stakeholders to assess whether companies are taking meaningful steps to improve energy efficiency.

Pursuant to the Discrimination Act as of today, as discussed under Question 7 above, employers are required to investigate, rectify, and prevent arbitrary differences in wages and other employment terms and conditions between women and men. The employer shall also analyse wage discrepancies between women and men performing work that is considered equal or equivalent. This information should be reported to the trade union to which the employer is bound through a collective agreement. There are no similar provisions on reporting on other Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (“EDI”) pay gaps.

The EU Pay Transparency Directive (Directive 2023/970) (the “Pay Transparency Directive”), adopted on 10 May 2023, strengthens the principle of equal pay through enhanced transparency and enforcement. The Directive must be transposed into national law by 7 June 2026, and a Swedish public inquiry has laid out a draft legislative act amending the Discrimination Act that, up until March 2026, looked set to enter into force in connection with the deadline. However, the Government has decided not to present a bill to Parliament as it considers the Directive too administratively burdensome and that it therefore risks undermining the gains made in gender equality. The Government has stated that it intends to work towards postponing the Directive’s implementation date and initiating a renegotiation of the Directive with a view to simplifying the rules.

Companies within the scope of the Swedish transposition of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and thereby the Annual Accounts Act will be obliged to report on modern slavery in their supply chains. Although the CSRD lacks specific provisions regarding modern slavery reporting, this requirement is mentioned in recital 49, according to which reporting standards regarding human rights shall also cover, inter alia, information on modern slavery in the company’s supply chain.

In addition, under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), undertakings must disclose, where material, their policies, action plans, targets, due‑diligence processes, and metrics relating to forced labour across both their own workforce (ESRS S1) and in their value chain (ESRS S2) — including incidents and remediation, grievance channels, and how risks of forced labour are identified, assessed and managed in line with the UNGP (the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights) and the OECD Guidelines. Smaller in‑scope undertakings may apply phased‑in disclosures for certain social standards, but if they omit S1/S2 in the phase‑in they must still state whether these topics were assessed as material.

The Forced Labour Regulation lays down rules prohibiting economic operators from placing and making available on the Union market or exporting from the Union market products made with forced labour. ‘Forced labour’ is defined as forced or compulsory labour, including forced child labour, as defined in Article 2 of the Convention on Forced Labour, 1930 (No. 29) of the International Labour Organization. The Regulation includes a prohibition on products made with forced labour, including such products that are offered through distance selling. It entered into force on 13 December 2024 and shall apply from 14 December 2027.

To our knowledge there are no direct signs of a major national increase in court disputes or enforcement actions regarding ESG questions.

However, there are notable cases pending. For instance, following the Swedish Supreme Court’s ruling in NJA 2025 s. 88 (see Question 1(d) above), the organisation behind the lawsuit has lodged a new suit against the State, this time in the name of the organisation itself – not an individual. In line with the Supreme Court ruling and the ECtHR ruling in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (see also Question 1(d) above), this second suit appears designed for admissibility and to achieve a ruling on the merits. The suit was lodged in February 2026, and the case is pending at the Stockholm District Court (Sw. Stockholms tingsrätt).

Finally, the outcome of the case against the former Lundin Oil executives, mentioned under Question 10(b) above, is certainly highly anticipated. The landmark case has attracted international attention and the trial, which began in Stockholm District Court in 2023 and is expected to close in May 2026, is the largest criminal trial ever held in Sweden. The trial comes on the heels of an investigation of almost unprecedented size and scope spanning several decades, and the Swedish Supreme Court has already weighed in. It ruled in NJA 2022 s. 796 that the District Court has jurisdiction to try the case against the former CEO, a Swiss citizen not residing in Sweden, under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. The District Court’s ruling is expected earliest during the summer and will – regardless of outcome – presumably be appealed.