My original comment (to which you responded) regarding the obligations of Pepsi Co were highlighting a critical comparison between a corporate drinks manufacturer and the pension fund. The Finnish Parliament can do what they like. If they’re doing it because Pepsi Co hasn’t fully pulled out of Russia, and thus Pepsi deserves to be shunned, what does Norway deserve?
If action is mandated for entities that don’t divest from Russia, then it must equally be applicable to all entities where this is true. Otherwise, hypocrisy.
Yes, you did. That’s the part I largely agreed with. The part I don’t agree with is fiduciary funds obligations not being more complex than serving drinks in your cafeteria/restaurant.
I have no criticism for the Finnish Parliament or their choice of soft drink selection.
I have no belief that a government office cafeteria is equally as complex as a pension fund.
Now if you’ve made it this far, why are Finland choosing not to support Pepsi? Let’s look to the article:
The Finnish parliament will no longer carry Pepsi products as the American soft drink giant continues to support the Russian economy by continuing its operations in the aggressor country
So, from the article, the Finnish Parliament have taken a stand against Pepsi because Pepsi won’t cease operating in Russia. And Pepsi Co failing to stop their operations in Russia is bad. Right?
Still with me? Great.
Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund also isn’t ceasing their operations (by way of their investments) in Russia.
Again: where is the equivalent outrage? Why isn’t anyone taking a stand against Norway for not divesting? They said they would, but haven’t. The amount is pennies when compared to their other investments. So why are they hanging on to them? Why don’t they do what they said they would? And why isn’t anyone speaking out against them for failing to divest, especially while their former PM is leading NATO?
Did you miss the first few words I wrote?
I did not. Happy to help!
My original comment (to which you responded) regarding the obligations of Pepsi Co were highlighting a critical comparison between a corporate drinks manufacturer and the pension fund. The Finnish Parliament can do what they like. If they’re doing it because Pepsi Co hasn’t fully pulled out of Russia, and thus Pepsi deserves to be shunned, what does Norway deserve?
If action is mandated for entities that don’t divest from Russia, then it must equally be applicable to all entities where this is true. Otherwise, hypocrisy.
Yes, you did. That’s the part I largely agreed with. The part I don’t agree with is fiduciary funds obligations not being more complex than serving drinks in your cafeteria/restaurant.
You seem confused. Let me be clear:
I have no criticism for the Finnish Parliament or their choice of soft drink selection.
I have no belief that a government office cafeteria is equally as complex as a pension fund.
Now if you’ve made it this far, why are Finland choosing not to support Pepsi? Let’s look to the article:
The Finnish parliament will no longer carry Pepsi products as the American soft drink giant continues to support the Russian economy by continuing its operations in the aggressor country
So, from the article, the Finnish Parliament have taken a stand against Pepsi because Pepsi won’t cease operating in Russia. And Pepsi Co failing to stop their operations in Russia is bad. Right?
Still with me? Great.
Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund also isn’t ceasing their operations (by way of their investments) in Russia.
Again: where is the equivalent outrage? Why isn’t anyone taking a stand against Norway for not divesting? They said they would, but haven’t. The amount is pennies when compared to their other investments. So why are they hanging on to them? Why don’t they do what they said they would? And why isn’t anyone speaking out against them for failing to divest, especially while their former PM is leading NATO?
Hope that helps!