Transparency Act Complaint over Palestinian Rights Violations Dismissed by the Norwegian Consumer Authority

The case reflects a recent focus in Norway and internationally on responsible investments and business operations, especially when a company is linked to war or conflict-affected areas. The Consumer Authority's decision represents one of the first major tests of Norway's Transparency Act and its provisions on corporate responsibility for human rights violations occurring through complex business relationships and ownership structures. The decision provides important clarifications on some of the boundaries for companies' due diligence obligations under the Transparency Act. 

About the complaint against Equinor

On 11 December 2024, Greenpeace Nordic filed a complaint against Equinor to the Consumer Authority. Greenpeace alleged that Equinor violated the Norwegian Transparency Act by failing to conduct proper due diligence assessments of serious human rights violations against Palestinians linked to Israeli settlements in occupied territories. 

More concretely, Greenpeace alleged violations of the Transparency Act arising from Equinor's business relationship with Delek Group Ltd. through Equinor's partnership with Ithaca Energy on the Rosebank oil and gas field off the coast of the Shetland Islands. Equinor owns 80% (through Equinor UK Limited) and Ithaca Energy 20% of Rosebank. Ithaca Energy is indirectly majority-owned by Delek Group.

Delek Group appears in the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) database of companies with activities related to Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. The complaint also referenced Israeli Ministry of Finance data indicating that Delek Fuel Corp. Ltd. (that is partly owned by Delek Group) supplies fuel to the Israeli military. Delek Group had been excluded by Norges Bank over unacceptable risk of contributions to serious breaches of fundamental ethical norms.

Greenpeace argued that Delek Group should be treated as Equinor's business partner (Norw.: "forretningspartner") within the meaning of the Transparency Act, that Equinor failed to conduct required due diligence or take measures under Section 4 of the Act, and that Equinor breached Section 6 of the Act by failing to answer Greenpeace's information requests adequately.

The adverse impacts were not directly linked to Equinor's business activities

According to Section 4 of the Transparency Act, companies must carry out due diligence in accordance with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Due diligence shall be carried out regularly and proportionally based on the size and nature of the enterprise, the context of its operations, and the severity and probability of adverse impacts.

Relying on the UN list, the Consumer Authority assumed there is a high risk that Delek Group's activities have serious adverse impacts on fundamental human rights connected to Israeli settlements. 

The complaint argued that Delek Group's majority control over Ithaca Energy rendered Delek Group a "business partner" of Equinor under the Act's definition, making adverse impacts related to the Delek Group "directly linked" to Equinor's operations at Rosebank. Alternatively, Greenpeace contended that Equinor had contributed to such impacts through revenue flows that enabled Delek Group's activities. The complaint further invoked heightened due diligence expectations derived from the OECD Guidelines and UNGP, emphasising the proportionality requirements under Section 4 given the conflict-related risks involved.

On 8 October 2025 the Consumer Authority concluded that any adverse impacts involving the Delek Group fell outside the scope of Equinor's due diligence obligations under the Transparency Act. The Consumer Authority held that neither Delek Group nor Ithaca Energy were part of Equinor's supply chain, and that Delek Group was not a business partner of Equinor. While indicating that Ithaca Energy might also not be considered a business partner of Equinor, the Consumer Authority did not conclude on this, as it held that the adverse risks associated with Delek Group were in any event not linked to Equinor's operations, products or services via the supply chain or business partners, as required by Section 4.

Hence, the Consumer Authority underscored that it would not be sufficient to prove that Delek Group and/or Ithaca Energy was a supplier, sub-supplier or business partner to Equinor. Section 4 of the Transparency Act also requires that the adverse impact must be directly linked to Equinor's operations, products or services.

As for the latter requirement, the Consumer Authority held that what is decisive is the connection between the company's operations, products or services and the negative consequence — not the general relationship between the company and the actor involved in negative consequences.

The core question was, therefore, whether Equinor's operations, products or services are directly linked to those adverse impacts through its supply chain or business partners. The Consumer Authority found no evidence of such a connection, inter alia, because there had not yet been any activity on the Rosebank field in which Equinor was cooperating with Ithaca Energy. 

Accordingly, the adverse impacts involving the Delek Group fell outside the scope of Equinor's due diligence obligations under the Transparency Act. Accordingly, Equinor was also not required to provide information about these adverse impacts either, and the case was closed.

Clarifications provided in the decision

The decision clarifies that due diligence obligations are defined by operational connections to adverse impacts, i.e. the relationship between the company's operations, product or service and the negative consequence, not by corporate ownership structures or investment relationships. Whilst it is often possible to find a link between companies via ownership relationships, this is not decisive for whether negative consequences are within the scope of the due diligence obligations under the Transparency Act. This means that companies need not conduct due diligence on all human rights impacts associated with every entity to which they are linked in a broad sense, but rather should focus their efforts on impacts that have a genuine connection to their own business activities.

The decision also clarifies that the decisive factor is whether a connection exists or not, so that emphasis should not be placed on what type of connection possibly exists. If the enterprise's operations, products or services are connected to a negative consequence, this connection will be a "direct" connection, according to the Consumer Authority's interpretation of the Act. This binary approach — either there is a connection or there is not — provides clarity and avoids the need for companies to engage in complex assessments of degrees of directness.

Notably,the Consumer Authority underscored that due diligence assessments under the Transparency Act are meant to be dynamic, so that companies must continuously evaluate the process and make necessary adjustments. Both internal changes (for example entering into new agreements, restructuring or acquisitions) and external changes (such as industry changes, political changes, war or social unrest) must be taken into account. If a company is made aware of a previously unknown risk or harm, for example through information requests, this can also trigger the need for new mapping and prioritisation under Section 4 of the Transparency Act. Hence, as pointed out by the Consumer Authority, it is important to note that both risk, and a company's connection to risk, can change over time.