Political Accountability in the Green Industry – Who Pays for the Failures

Political Accountability in the Green Industry – When Visions Outpace Reality

In Sweden and Europe, politicians have long emphasized the importance of a green transition. Grand promises of fossil-free energy, sustainable industry, and self-sufficiency in new technology have dominated political discourse. But what happens when these visions are pursued without economic grounding? When taxpayer money is used to fund companies that have never demonstrated profitability? Is the business sector truly driving the transition, or are political decisions creating companies out of thin air?

Politicians as Investors – But Without Risk

Typically, private investors and venture capitalists take financial risks on new technology. They conduct thorough analyses, assess risks, and absorb financial losses if a venture fails. However, when politicians push industrial projects through state subsidies and grants, it is the taxpayers who bear the financial burden.

Politicians rarely have direct business experience, yet they make decisions involving billions in taxpayer money for projects they believe in. The problem is that these investments are often ideologically driven rather than economically sustainable. When the state steps in to guarantee loans or distribute grants without imposing the same requirements as private investors, it creates a dangerous situation where companies do not need to prove their long-term viability before receiving funding.

When Politics Becomes Business Strategy

Many companies adjust their business strategies based on available political support rather than actual market demand. If the government signals that billions are available for green industry grants, companies will naturally line up. Instead of building enterprises that can stand on their own, firms become dependent on a constant flow of state funds.

This distorts the market, where political decisions—rather than competitiveness and innovation—determine which companies survive. This kind of planned economy resembles past failed systems rather than the free-market principles otherwise championed in Europe.

Who Takes Responsibility When Things Go Wrong?

When green investments fail and billions are lost, there are rarely political consequences. Politicians can approve massive investments, but if they collapse, they do not have to answer for them. Taxpayers absorb the losses while decision-makers often move on to other positions without having to explain their failures.

Few examples exist where politicians have been held accountable for failed industrial investments. This creates a dangerous system where the political structure rewards visions and grand promises rather than responsible economic thinking.

Does Sweden Need Stronger Public Official Accountability?

One potential solution for increasing accountability is to reintroduce and strengthen the public official responsibility laws (“tjänstemannaansvar”). In the past, politicians and civil servants could be held legally responsible for negligent or irresponsible decisions leading to significant financial damage. Today, this accountability has been significantly weakened, meaning that there are few direct consequences for decisions that harm taxpayers.

A reinforced public official responsibility law would mean that politicians and senior officials must be more cautious in how they handle public funds. It could also introduce legal consequences if gross negligence in the management of taxpayer money can be demonstrated. This would lead to stricter scrutiny of state investments in industrial projects, ensuring that decisions are based on economic sustainability rather than political aspirations.

The Future of the Green Transition – Without Political Manipulation

If Sweden and Europe are to lead the green transition, we must demand higher standards for how state funds are used. State support should come in the form of loans rather than grants, and politicians must take greater responsibility for their decisions. There must also be a clearer connection between long-term profitability and public investment.

Green technology and sustainable industries are necessary, but they must be able to stand on their own. Political steering should not create a false market where certain companies survive only because they fit an ideological agenda. It is time we demand economic realism and responsible political management of future industrial investments.

Currently, Swedish politicians do not bear direct legal responsibility for their decisions in the same way as corporate executives or private investors. There is no legislation that holds politicians accountable for incorrect decisions that lead to major financial losses—not even if these decisions were based on poor analysis or outright incompetence.

How Does Political Accountability Work Today?

• Political accountability – Politicians can lose their positions in the next election, but that is the only real consequence.
• No financial or legal repercussions – They cannot be personally liable for poor decisions, even if they result in billions in losses for the state.
• Public official responsibility exists, but is weak – Government officials can, in some cases, be held accountable if they break the law, but this typically applies only to outright legal violations, not bad decision-making.
• The Constitutional Committee (KU) reviews the government – KU can criticize ministers and the government if they have acted inappropriately, but this rarely leads to tangible consequences.

Can Politicians Decide Anything They Want?

Essentially, yes. Parliament has the power to make any decision it wants, as long as it is within the framework of the constitution. This means politicians can:

• Give away taxpayer money in grants with no requirement for repayment.
• Sign state guarantees for risky investments (such as Northvolt).
• Change laws and regulations without bearing any financial responsibility.

What Would Stronger Public Official Accountability Mean?

If public official accountability were strengthened, it would mean:

• Politicians and officials could be held legally accountable for decisions that lead to severe financial losses.
• Stricter risk analyses would be required before taxpayer money is distributed.
• Private investors would bear more responsibility in industrial investments instead of relying on the state as a risk-free financier.

Conclusion

Today, there are no direct consequences for politicians who make poor financial decisions with taxpayer money. They can give away billions, make miscalculations, and take financial risks—without being held accountable. To avoid more Northvolt-like situations, reform is needed to ensure stricter scrutiny of political decisions and clear accountability mechanisms.

If a stronger public official responsibility law had been in place when Northvolt was granted state funds, the situation could have been very different. Here are some possible outcomes:

1. Stricter Review of Grants and Guarantees

• Before the state approved billions in aid to Northvolt, more thorough economic analyses and risk assessments would have been required.
• Politicians and officials approving the funds would have been obligated to prove the investment was financially viable.
• If it still failed, they could be personally held accountable for allocating taxpayer money without a clear repayment plan.

2. Personal Liability for Tax Losses

• In its strictest form, public official responsibility laws could have made those who approved the funding financially liable for part of the loss.
• This is common in private companies, where CEOs and board members can be held personally responsible for severe mismanagement.

3. Legal Consequences for Negligence

• If negligence or mismanagement had been evident, politicians and officials who approved the grants could have been investigated for misconduct in office.
• In severe cases, this could have led to legal consequences if decisions were found to lack any economic rationale.

4. More Market-Oriented Financing

• The state likely would not have provided grants but instead required Northvolt to secure private investments and loans.
• The company would have been under more pressure to demonstrate profitability instead of relying on state support.

5. Fewer “Political Prestige Projects”

• Northvolt received significant backing because it was politically popular, not necessarily because it was an economically viable investment.
• With public official accountability, politicians would have needed to justify every taxpayer dollar rather than relying on ideological arguments.

Conclusion: Northvolt Likely Would Not Exist in Its Current Form

Had public official accountability laws been stricter, Northvolt would have either had to survive without state grants or never have been funded in the first place. Politicians and officials would have been more cautious about making poor financial decisions, and the company would have faced higher demands for profitability from the outset.

In short: We could have avoided a taxpayer-funded billion-dollar loss.