This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on May 6th, 2026. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

Kinnevik’s strategy was sharply criticized by Cristina Stenbeck at the company’s own annual general meeting this week. But those comments should reasonably have been self-criticism.

Annual general meetings tend to be fairly sleepy affairs. A lawyer reads out a lot of procedural points, most shareholders have cast their votes by post before the meeting starts — and afterwards there’s coffee at the listed company’s expense.

That kind of AGM was evidently not what Kinnevik’s chairman Cristina Stenbeck had in mind. Change was to be signaled.

“The board’s view is that the previous strategy has been too risky,” she told the attending shareholders. “What’s needed instead is more cash flow-generating companies as a base for the business.”

The larger — unanswered — question hung in the room. The share price has fallen more than 78 percent over five years. How did Kinnevik end up here in the first place?

To answer that, we need to look at the basics of how Swedish corporate governance works. Sometimes people oversimplify with “the board governs and the CEO executes.” In practice, the CEO often has considerably more say than that. But the board holds the ultimate trump card: the ability to dismiss them. The question of whether the company has the right CEO — and thus the right strategy — is something the board should continuously ask itself.

But there is another level, and it is particularly important for Kinnevik in the situation they now find themselves in.

The owners — via the AGM — appoint the board. And among the larger and most influential owners, we find chairman Cristina Stenbeck herself.

When Kinnevik’s obviously failed strategy is reviewed, this dimension needs to be included. Kinnevik’s former CEO, Georgi Ganev, did not execute the strategy in a vacuum. It was approved by the board, and continued for several years.

Ganev took over as CEO in the summer of 2017, and the sale of Tele2 — exactly the kind of cash flow-generating holding Kinnevik is now seeking — wasn’t completed until 2024. Where was the oversight then? Where were the owners?

They wouldn’t have had to look very far to find inspiration for the model Stenbeck is now proposing. She talks about “building a backbone” for Kinnevik — that is, more stable companies that don’t bleed money and can finance new investments — which is exactly how Kinnevik used to operate. Companies like Billerud Korsnäs (sold in 2013) and Tele2 served precisely that function in relatively recent memory.

Beyond this new backbone, the investments in climate technology are to be wound down, an internal organizational review is to be conducted, and investments in new companies are to be paused. Furthermore, the company should be selective about investments in existing holdings.

What’s left? We have an investment company that currently has no intention of making any new investments. Even if you’re already in the existing portfolio, it seems you can count on limited backing.

The clearest thing to emerge was that some of the company’s own staff would be let go, and an acquisition would be sought to replace the cash flows lost with Tele2. It’s not the most inspiring action plan anyone has ever heard.

The board’s most important task, as noted, is to ensure the company has the right CEO. Now they must prove they are capable of precisely that task. Market confidence is eroded, much of the money has already been distributed to the owners — and the share price just keeps falling. An optimist might say it can only go up from here.

What’s needed is a visionary optimist. Someone who can look beyond Kinnevik’s weak portfolio as it stands, and set a course toward something new. A destination where the share price moves in the right direction and Kinnevik’s position within Swedish business life can be reclaimed. It will take a while.

The situation is tough — but it has had a silver lining for some. One of Sweden’s leading investment companies has been gradually dismantled while its owners collected dividends worth billions.

Receiving generous dividends is one part of what comes with being a major shareholder.

Now, other shareholders would like to see the other part too — governing responsibly and taking accountability.