• Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund has urged the SEC not to scrap U.S. climate disclosure rules outright.
• NBIM has 53% of its investments in the U.S., giving its intervention weight across American capital markets.
• The dispute raises wider questions over whether investors will retain consistent access to financially material climate risk data.

Oslo pushes back on U.S. disclosure rollback

Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is challenging a U.S. proposal to eliminate federal climate disclosure requirements for listed companies.

Norges Bank Investment Management said it does not support outright repeal of the Securities and Exchange Commission rules. The regulations require companies to report certain climate-related risks and spending.

The SEC proposed scrapping the rules in late May. They were adopted in 2024 under former President Joe Biden but have never taken effect.

Legal challenges from industry groups and conservative-leaning states stalled implementation. The SEC is now seeking public comment before deciding whether to formally withdraw the regulations.

For NBIM, the issue is not simply one of climate policy. It is also about access to investment-grade information.

“We rely on companies’ narrative disclosures to add analytical context to financial statements, which informs our investment decisions, shareholder voting and risk management processes,” Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) said in a statement.

The intervention places one of the world’s most influential institutional investors on the opposite side of the debate from the current U.S. administration.

$2 trillion investor argues for a middle ground

NBIM managed more than $2 trillion in assets at the end of 2025. Around 53% of its total investments were in the U.S.

That exposure gives the Norwegian fund a direct financial interest in how American companies report climate-related risks.

Rather than defend the existing framework without changes, NBIM argued that the SEC has other options.

“Alternatives to outright rescission exist that would address the Commission’s concerns about scope and cost, while preserving a baseline of financially material disclosure,” it added.

That position reflects a broader investor concern over regulatory fragmentation.

Large asset owners increasingly rely on climate disclosures to assess transition risks, capital expenditure needs and exposure to physical climate impacts. Removing mandatory requirements could leave investors more dependent on voluntary reporting.

That can make comparisons harder, particularly across sectors where climate risks differ sharply.

Investor opposition broadens

NBIM is not alone in opposing the SEC proposal.

Sweden’s AP7 government pension fund said last week that it also opposes scrapping the disclosure rules.

The responses from two large Nordic public investors add an international dimension to the SEC debate. Both institutions invest heavily across global markets and have long investment horizons.

Their concern is therefore less about meeting a specific climate target and more about preserving reliable financial information.

RELATED ARTICLE: Norway Wealth Fund Faces NGO Scrutiny Over Climate Voting Record

For corporate boards, the debate also affects governance.

Even if U.S. federal requirements weaken, multinational companies will continue to face climate reporting obligations elsewhere. European regulation, investor expectations and voluntary disclosure frameworks remain relevant.

That creates a risk of diverging reporting standards between the U.S. and other major markets.

What investors and boards should watch

The SEC has not yet made a final decision on the proposed rescission.

For investors, the outcome will affect the consistency of climate data available across U.S. public companies.

For corporate leaders, it may also determine whether climate disclosure becomes primarily a regulatory obligation or an investor-driven expectation.

Either way, climate-related financial information is unlikely to disappear from global capital markets.

The dispute instead centres on who sets the baseline, how much companies must disclose and whether that information remains comparable.

With more than half of Norway’s sovereign wealth fund invested in the U.S., NBIM’s position carries unusual weight.

The wider question is whether American regulators move further away from mandatory climate reporting while global investors continue demanding the same information for capital allocation and risk management.