Swedish pension fund drops TotalEnergies over human rights concerns

• Sweden’s largest pension fund, AP7, has removed TotalEnergies from its investment portfolio, citing concerns over climate related risks and human rights.
• The decision was reported on 10 December 2025 as part of the fund’s annual review of excluded companies, which saw a total of 36 firms dropped.

AP7’s move reflects a growing trend among long term investors who have reassessed TotalEnergies’ involvement in the East African Crude Oil Pipeline and chosen to disengage. In recent years, more than 50 investors are reported to have excluded or avoided financing projects linked to the company, with many pointing directly to the pipeline.

A number of high profile divestments have taken place over the past four years. In 2022, the Dutch asset manager Cardano, formerly known as Actiam, sold its holdings in TotalEnergies because of its role in the pipeline project. The following year, Danish pension fund PKA divested after what it described as years of unsuccessful engagement, citing a lack of response from the company to its concerns. In 2024, Dutch pension funds Achmea and ASR excluded TotalEnergies, with Achmea referring explicitly to environmental and human rights violations connected to the project. In 2025, Nordic asset manager Nordea Asset Management placed the company under restrictions, halting the purchase of new bonds or shares amid ongoing allegations of human rights abuses.

The retreat from TotalEnergies is not limited to investors. Governments have also shown increasing reluctance to support the company’s fossil fuel developments. This was highlighted by the recent decision of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands to withdraw support for the Mozambique liquefied natural gas project. The UK alone reversed commitments worth more than one billion dollars, citing heightened risks since 2020.

Analysts say the combined shift in investor behaviour and waning government support points to a broader reassessment of the East African pipeline. Financial institutions are increasingly viewing the project as a material risk rather than a viable long term asset, with concerns ranging from stranded assets and legal exposure to reputational damage and misalignment with climate commitments. Investors involved argue that these decisions are based on risk management rather than ideology, as capital flows continue to move away from new fossil fuel expansion.

Campaigners also point to testimony from affected communities in Uganda and Tanzania, who describe widespread displacement, environmental threats and alleged abuses of the judicial system against those opposing the project. These accounts, they argue, undermine claims that the pipeline will deliver meaningful development benefits, while leaving local communities exposed to long term social and economic harm.

Calls are now growing for banks and insurers still backing the project, including Standard Bank South Africa, KCB Bank Uganda and Stanbic Bank Uganda, to reconsider their involvement. Observers say the withdrawal of pension funds, asset managers and governments should be seen as a clear warning.

As pressure mounts, critics argue that the financial and reputational costs of continuing with the project are becoming increasingly difficult to justify. They maintain that the responsible course of action for remaining backers is to withdraw, and that if TotalEnergies continues to pursue the project, investors should consider divesting from the company altogether.

Author: Bryan Groenendaal