This week, Sweden’s Seventh AP Fund, AP7, announced that it is excluding more than 30 oil companies from its investment universe, including Aker BP, BP, Chevron, TotalEnergies and Occidental Petroleum. The decision affects the premium pension savings of nearly six million Swedes.
This is not a symbolic move. It is a financial one.
AP7 explains that geopolitical tensions and a broader ESG backlash have contributed to weaker climate strategies among several oil and gas companies. As a result, the fund is now tightening its criteria and redirecting capital toward energy companies with the strongest potential to transition away from fossil fuels.
What makes this moment especially important is the context.
Over the past years, AP7 has received strong criticism and multiple climate warnings on We Don’t Have Time, where citizens, scientists and climate organizations have repeatedly raised concerns about the fund’s exposure to fossil fuel expansion. Those warnings were not ideological. They were grounded in climate science, financial risk and long-term responsibility.
Following a high-profile climate dialogue between We Don’t Have Time’s Founder & CEO Ingmar Rentzhog and Johan Florén, Head of Communications at AP7, the fund took a significant step by divesting from Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil company. At the time, the decision was widely seen as a clear signal that AP7 was prepared to reassess fossil exposure when credible concerns were raised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=dXZS6K7p5Cc&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.wedonthavetime.org%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.wedonthavetime.org
Now, AP7 has gone further. The exclusion of more than 30 additional oil companies shows that this was not a one-off response, but part of a broader tightening of how climate risk is interpreted and acted upon.
This shift also comes amid growing political pressure. Recently, Sweden’s Centre Party publicly stated that it is prepared to go into an election with the aim of changing the rules governing what the state pension fund AP7 is allowed to invest in. Whether or not this directly influenced the decision, it reflects a wider societal expectation: that public pension capital should align with climate reality and long-term risk management.
AP7 has long stated that its exclusions are based on clear criteria, particularly violations of the Paris Agreement, involvement in nuclear weapons, or serious human rights abuses. By now extending that logic more decisively to oil and gas companies moving in the wrong direction, the fund is sending a clear message to the market.
This is what climate leadership looks like when it moves beyond words.
In a time when climate action is often framed as a trade-off against security or returns, AP7 is showing the opposite. Managing pension capital responsibly means taking climate risk seriously, not postponing it. It means recognizing that long-term value depends on companies that are preparing for a fossil-free economy, not betting against it.
Capital does not follow promises.
It follows direction.
When a state pension fund tightens its fossil fuel exposure and actively shifts capital toward transition-ready companies, it does more than adjust a portfolio. It helps reset the norm.
The climate transition is driven by many forces: technology, policy, activism and science. But it is also driven by institutions that listen, learn and act when the signals become impossible to ignore.
This is one of those moments.
Thank you, AP7, for listening — and for taking another step that protects both people’s pensions and our shared future 💚
