Response to interpellation 2023/24:639 on the Export Credit Agency's mandate and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the Export Credit Board's mandate and compliance with the UN principles for human rights. M argues that the government directs the Export Credit Board through instructions on compliance with the UN principles and OECD guidelines 1. M emphasizes that trade builds prosperity and that sustainability work is a competitive advantage for Swedish companies 2 3. M wants to balance the regulations to avoid administrative burdens that hinder trade or disadvantage developing countries 2 4. M argues that overly strict rules risk making Sweden poorer and hindering developing countries 3. MP considers that the government has acted weakly regarding human rights and climate 5. MP wants to see stronger EU legislation against forced labor 5 6. MP argues that clear guidelines are central to avoiding exploitation of poor countries 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! Elin Söderberg has asked Minister for Energy and Business Busch what measures the Minister will take regarding the Export Credit Board's mandate in light of the information that emerged in Kalla fakta's review, and when the measures will be taken.
The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
I would like to begin by thanking Elin Söderberg for the shown interest in the activities of the Export Credit Board, EKN, and how the Swedish export credit guarantee system works.
EKN has a special and important mission to promote Swedish companies' exports and contribute to investments. This includes complex markets, including developing countries.
The Government governs its agencies through the instruction, annual regulatory letters, and the annual agency dialogue. In the instruction to EKN - Ordinance (2007:1217) with instruction for the Export Credit Board - the following is stated:
The authority shall, in its work with sustainable business, follow the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, recommendations on corruption in state-backed export credits and common approaches for export credit institutions, and contribute to a sustainable debt situation by following the OECD's guidelines on sustainable lending.
The authority shall also ensure that the export-promoting activities are conducted in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and the principles of sustainable business in the UN Global Compact, according to Regulation (2007:1217) with its amendment (2021:125).
It is, according to the government, a clear instruction for EKN's activities, including the important sustainability work. EKN is an agency that makes its own decisions, and the government does not comment on individual transactions. I note, however, that the agency has reported answers on its website to the questions that were raised in TV4's program.
The agency's activities are followed up and audited annually in accordance with standard regulations by the government, the Riksdag, internal auditors, and the Swedish National Audit Office.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Johan Forssell for the answer.
It is welcome that we have a good regulatory framework and guidelines regarding the Export Credit Board's work, and it is important that we have a good follow-up of the regulatory framework. It is also welcome that the media conducts reviews so that we can follow the work, just as the government continues to monitor both the regulatory frameworks and the follow-ups of these being followed.
We have today several major global challenges that are related to the issues we are now touching upon, not least climate change, where Sweden has committed to living up to the Paris Agreement, but also the severe loss of biodiversity and the work with the broad sustainability goals in Agenda 2030, where the work for human rights also is included.
That we have good sustainability work both in Sweden and within the EU, also linked to Swedish exports and Swedish foreign trade, is central for us to be able to take steps forward in handling the major global challenges when it comes to both the environment, climate, and human rights. It is also a prerequisite for us to have peace and security and thus a prerequisite for Sweden's security.
In my assessment, the government has acted weakly in a number of areas, such as issues concerning the ensuring of human rights, climate and environment, in several cases linked to exports and foreign trade. We have, for example, a piece of work within the EU regarding forced labor where the government has taken the position that everyone is against forced labor. We in Miljöpartiet believe that the EU needs to have much clearer muscles to detect and handle situations where forced labor occurs.
We have also had work in the recent past regarding the due diligence legislation in the EU. It concerns companies' responsibility for the environment and human rights. There, we in Miljöpartiet have wanted to see strong legislation that ensures we take large steps forward when it comes to companies' sustainability work, but the government has held a position that has caused the legislation at the EU level to be watered down in several parts.
My question to the Minister is therefore: How does the Minister view the government's ambitions in these areas when it comes to Swedish exports, Swedish foreign trade, effects and conditions for meeting the international commitments that Sweden has pledged to fulfill? What level of ambition does the government have regarding human rights, environment and climate linked to these areas of responsibility?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! I can begin by saying that we are a government that believes strongly in the power of entrepreneurship, trade, business, and market economy. It is not so much a political opinion, which it is in and of itself also, as a statement of all available history and all facts. It is precisely trade and market economy that build prosperity.
It is enough to look at our own country, located way up in northern Europe without a large home market behind it. Still, today we are one of the world's most successful and wealthy countries. What is it that explains this journey? To a large extent, it is our fantastic export companies, the focus on innovation and entrepreneurship, and hard-working, very skilled people who have created this prosperity.
We now want more countries to be able to make the same development journey. We can observe that many countries that for many years, sometimes even several decades, have received large sums in Swedish aid, still continue to be very poor and dependent on aid from, for example, Sweden.
We are therefore trying to think anew and break new ground here and support our fantastic export companies in the ways we can, not least because we have tough international competition. This requires a much more forward-looking Swedish effort than previous governments have managed or been interested in.
I want to say that Swedish companies are far ahead in sustainability work. I have sat in quite a few meetings since the 2022 election, and wherever I travel in the world I constantly hear this, not least in many developing countries, which constantly confirm that Swedish companies are very decent. The companies often have a modern view on environmental work, sustainability work, workers' rights and so on. It is an important foundation. I also believe that it is a competitive advantage for our country that we are not interested in quick wins in that part, but rather we want to shape partnerships that are good for both the recipient country and for Sweden. This includes behaving in a decent manner.
When it comes to EKN and its decisions, it is as I said, an authority that makes its own decisions. We in the government do not comment on individual transactions, but I want to point out again that the activities are followed up and audited according to established regulations, for example here in the Riksdag but also within the work of the Swedish National Audit Office.
Then there is also very clearly included in the instruction that the operations shall, of course, be conducted in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and also the UN Global Compact.
When it comes to upcoming regulations at the EU level, it is always a balancing point, and it is worth realizing that one must find just such a balance. We also do not want a regulatory framework that makes it so difficult, bureaucratic and administratively burdensome for our companies – perhaps not least just the small and medium-sized enterprises – that the consequence is that one reduces trade with developing countries or perhaps even has no trade at all. That would be very counterproductive.
It would be bad for Sweden and make us poorer, but above all, it would be very bad for many developing countries. I believe that also explains quite a lot of the criticism that has come from many developing countries. This applies not only to the regulatory frameworks that Elin Söderberg points out but also in the ongoing free trade negotiations taking place, where many developing countries are quite critical of the EU's current direction.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for his clarifications.
From the Green Party's side, we also see the power that exists in people's creativity and entrepreneurship. Good trade relations can be very strengthening for all parties involved and also build other important relations.
The State Councilor highlighted that Swedish entrepreneurship is at the forefront when it comes to sustainability and that this is also a major competitive advantage; it follows, however, that we in the Swedish Riksdag, as in the European Parliament and in the EU, for a long time have worked for clear guidelines regarding sustainability issues, workers' rights, environment, climate, and human rights. This has ensured that the innovative power present in our Swedish companies has been used to develop sustainable business models and sustainable products that are popular on the international market and thereby also to strengthen Swedish competitiveness.
I see, instead, the risk that it harms Swedish competitiveness when Sweden falls behind in sustainability work. Therefore, it is very concerning for me when the current government takes steps backward regarding both climate and environmental issues, as well as in various ways diluting sustainability legislations within the EU linked to human rights, such as the due diligence legislation or the ongoing work against forced labor.
The question of administrative burdens and that we have regulatory frameworks that meet the companies based on the conditions they have so that they can deliver on the ambition that exists regarding the sustainability work is very important. But I become concerned when the minister argues for a restrictive stance in sustainability issues based on the fact that it could be administratively burdensome, reduce trade, and be counterproductive.
The other side of that coin is, in fact, that one has a trade policy that does not mean that trade occurs on fair terms for, for example, developing countries. Instead, forced labor occurs to a greater extent, the environment in the countries where one is active deteriorates significantly, and so on. This harms both the countries that we have a trade relationship with and their conditions to develop strongly forward.
In order for us to see strong global development based on what I perceive the Minister is requesting, that is, that we develop and achieve increased prosperity together, fair conditions are required, and also that Swedish and European business activities in other countries do not worsen the conditions for the companies in those countries to develop.
Therefore, I see it as completely central that we have powerful regulations in the EU that stimulate both Swedish and European companies to not only develop their own sustainability work and strengthen their own competitiveness but also, when it concerns companies operating in other countries, contribute to a good environment, a good working environment, good work for human rights, and good climate work in the countries where they operate. This also strengthens the prosperity of those countries.
Against that background, I would like to hear from the Minister how one views the risk with this, that is, that the argument that it is administratively burdensome risks leading to an exploitation in a way that undermines other countries' conditions for a strong prosperity development.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! How is it actually explained that Swedish companies are so immensely appreciated and successful out in the world, not least regarding just sustainability work? Is it only the merit of politics, through legislation and regulations? No, I do not believe that is the way. I feel quite convinced that it is not at all in that way.
It is clear that regulations and legislation are important in many ways, but fundamentally, I believe that a modern view on these issues must also mean that one sees that many Swedish companies want to do a lot of good. It is a sincere ambition and important for the companies.
We no longer live in the 1950s and 1960s; it is in the companies' own interest and in line with their own values to act in a way that is reasonable and sustainable. It is not just because it is good for business, but also because it is important for their own sake to follow the principles. It is also thanks to their employees, for who wants to work for a company that does not behave in a good way? I believe it is important that we in this chamber sometimes update our view on Swedish companies.
It is clear that it is also important to have legislation. As I said in my answer, we have today instructions for, among other things, EKN's activities, and they are extensive. We advocate for them, and it is obvious to us that these rules should be followed. If it is the case that they are still not followed, it can ultimately result in a legal process.
In the case that Elin Söderberg points out in her interpellation, there however seem to be quite a few different accounts regarding what actually happened. Not least, many journalists have expressed themselves very critically regarding how this has been reported, and there seem to be pieces of the puzzle that have not come to light. We shall have to see what remains once it has been further scrutinized.
I believe, however, that one must realize something here: It is clear that we should have a regulatory framework that is powerful, says Elin Söderberg, and so it can be - but we must also realize that it is a matter of finding a balance. The risk is that otherwise we get a trade that becomes less than today's. The risk is also that we get a trade that, instead of benefiting the developing countries, makes it so difficult and risky that we disadvantage the developing countries.
I hear this all the time when I meet with developing countries. Many even describe it as a form of neo-colonialism – that the EU comes and micro-manages, regulates, and almost points fingers at developing countries, which have a long development journey ahead of them. It is exactly like in Sweden: The regulatory frameworks and the situation we have today did not apply 30, 40, or 50 years ago. One must see that steps are taken continuously, all the time.
The danger I see concerns partly the developing countries in that part, if it is only about having as strict regulations as possible without considering what consequences it will have, and partly the fact that Sweden, as a small, export-dependent country, is very dependent on precisely open markets and on our ability to do business even in markets that are complex and difficult. Otherwise, there will also be a price tag for Sweden in the form of thousands of lost jobs and that we will become poorer.
One such topical issue is the Mercosur agreement, which we have negotiated and which would be the largest free trade agreement in the EU's history. It is almost becoming embarrassing that this major free trade agreement has not yet been signed. I hope that the next commission will take hold of this and that we will get a signing. Many of the developing countries raise this all the time and ask: When will you sign the Mercosur agreement?
I have noted that Miljöpartiet has expressed criticism regarding the agreement. That does touch upon this discussion, so I would very much like to hear how Miljöpartiet views it today. Is one for or against a signing?
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! What I am reacting to in the speech is this that it becomes colonialist when we, from the EU's side, have expectations of good sustainability work in the companies that are active in other countries when we conduct foreign trade and have trade relations.
I am very questioning as to what the Minister means by that statement. If we do not have requirements that companies act ethically in terms of the environment and human rights and from a climate perspective when they operate in other countries, there are indeed great risks for gross exploitation and colonialist exploitation of other countries. Therefore, it is completely central that we have clear guidelines when it comes to sustainability issues when companies operate in other countries and in our trade relations. Otherwise, the power dynamics become completely skewed, and there is then a risk that people in poor countries are exploited instead of a win-win situation arising between the parties. Miljöpartiet takes this very seriously.
We have spoken about the Export Credit Board's work. I think, as I mentioned, that it is very important that there are clear guidelines, that we have a follow-up, and that we continue to work to step up this work.
I also see clear links to other ongoing processes in this. One such process concerns the energy charter treaty. We in Miljöpartiet are critical of the fact that the government has not wanted to follow the European Parliament's line and tear this up. It hinders, for example, countries' conditions to adopt new climate legislation; they risk instead being sued by energy companies.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! I want to clarify that it is often the developing countries themselves that put forward the argument that the EU sometimes acts in a colonialist manner. It may be interesting for Elin Söderberg to note that several of them are left-leaning and have clear left-wing governments and left-wing presidents.
In a discussion like this, it often becomes very simple – let's just have the toughest regulatory framework possible, and then the question is settled! Let's have rules as strict as is possible! We must, however, consider what the consequences of this will be. No one can surely think it is good to have such a bureaucratic and heavy regulatory framework that the consequence is that no trade occurs at all. There is such a risk, and that is why we from Sweden's side have constantly highlighted the issues of competitiveness.
I also believe that is why many developing countries are critical of quite a lot of this development, not least now when negotiations on free trade agreements are ongoing. What is the EU actually doing? All the time they bring in even more things and even more regulations into this. The obvious risk is that there will be no free trade agreement at all. That would make Sweden poorer, but above all, it would be very hindering for the developing countries. They realize this, and that is why they constantly and in many different contexts highlight these perspectives.
Let us ensure that we have a regulatory framework that works, which is not overly detailed and which allows us to actually achieve even more trade between our countries!
It is obvious to us that we are to have modern guidelines for this. We do have that, as said. We follow the UN's principles, the OECD's guidelines and the UN's Global Compact.
Fundamentally, I believe we must realize that Swedish companies want to do the right thing. It is no guarantee that it will always be right – sometimes one operates in complex markets – but I maintain that I am completely convinced that it is a strong competitive advantage for us in Sweden that we have such forward-looking companies in our sustainability work.
I thank Elin Söderberg for the interpellation.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.