AI Sweden — Conflicts of Interest at Sweden's National AI Centre

Background: AI Sweden and Lindholmen

AI Sweden is Sweden's national centre for applied artificial intelligence. The organisation is owned and operated by Lindholmen Science Park, one of the world's largest innovation clusters, located in Gothenburg. AI Sweden distributes more than 300 million kronor in public funding each year to companies, research institutions and startups — and the steering committee decides priorities, partnerships and resource allocation.

The problem is fundamental: several members of the steering committee represent organisations that are simultaneously founding partners of AI Sweden AND recipients of its resources. This creates a systemic problem in which the same individuals make decisions about grants to their own organisations.

The 2025 Steering Committee: 9 Members, 5–7 Conflicted

Peder Blomgren — Chair, AstraZeneca

Peder Blomgren chairs AI Sweden's steering committee while simultaneously leading AstraZeneca, which is a founding partner of AI Sweden. AstraZeneca is also one of the founders of Sferical AI — a parallel AI organisation distributing millions of kronor.

This means Blomgren sits on the steering committee and makes decisions on resource allocation for an organisation whose principal co-founder is his own company.

• The conflict: Blomgren represents AstraZeneca on the steering committee while AstraZeneca is a founding partner
• The double conflict: AstraZeneca is creating Sferical AI together with Saab and other founders
• The effect: Blomgren can influence which projects receive AI Sweden funding, potentially benefiting his own company and Sferical AI

Birgitta Bergvall-Kåreborn — Vice-Chancellor, Luleå University of Technology

Birgitta Bergvall-Kåreborn is vice-chancellor at Luleå University of Technology (LTU) and a member of AI Sweden's steering committee. In that role she decides which universities receive resources from AI Sweden — while her own university is itself a recipient of those resources.

LTU has its own regional node under AI Sweden and receives annual funding for research and development. Bergvall-Kåreborn therefore sits on both sides of the distribution.

• The conflict: Bergvall-Kåreborn decides on resources that her own university receives
• The role: As vice-chancellor she is responsible for LTU's budget and strategic development
• The effect: She can influence how much of AI Sweden's funding is allocated to LTU

Petter Bedoire — CTO, Saab

Petter Bedoire is Chief Technology Officer at Saab and a member of the steering committee. Saab is both a founding partner of AI Sweden AND one of the founders of Sferical AI.

As Saab's CTO and a steering committee member, Bedoire can influence which AI projects and technologies AI Sweden prioritises — potentially benefiting Saab's own AI investments.

• The conflict: Bedoire represents Saab while Saab is a founding partner
• The Sferical AI link: Saab is one of the founders of Sferical AI alongside AstraZeneca
• The effect: May prioritise projects that reinforce Saab's technological position

Niklas Wahlberg — VP, Volvo

Niklas Wahlberg, from Volvo, sits on the steering committee. Volvo is a founding partner of AI Sweden and a recipient of its resources.

Wahlberg can influence strategic decisions about AI investments in ways that potentially benefit Volvo.

Ingrid Petersson — Vice-Chancellor, Lund University

Ingrid Petersson, vice-chancellor of Lund University, is a member of the steering committee. Lund University has its own regional AI Sweden node and receives annual funding.

As with Bergvall-Kåreborn, Petersson can influence whether — and to what extent — her own university receives resources from the organisation on whose steering committee she sits.

The Wallenberg Sphere: AstraZeneca, Ericsson, Saab and SEB

The Wallenberg sphere — the network of companies tied to the Wallenberg family's capital and interests — dominates both organisations. This includes:

• AstraZeneca — Founder of AI Sweden and Sferical AI
• Ericsson — Founding partner
• Saab — Founding partner and Sferical AI co-founder
• SEB — Founding partner

Together, these companies effectively control both organisations, making it possible for the same firms both to decide on funding AND to receive it.

The Absence of a Conflict-of-Interest Policy

Despite AI Sweden distributing more than 300 million kronor in public funding each year, there is no formal conflict-of-interest policy for the steering committee. Such a policy would normally:

• Define what constitutes a conflict of interest
• Require members with identified conflicts to recuse themselves from relevant decisions
• Establish procedures for declaring and documenting conflicts
• Create mechanisms for external review of conflict questions

Without such a policy, it is up to each individual to decide whether they are conflicted — a classic conflict-of-interest situation.

Revolving Door: Lindholmen to AI Sweden

Several key figures have moved directly from Lindholmen Science Park to leadership positions at AI Sweden with no cooling-off period whatsoever:

• Martin Svensson — From Lindholmen directly into AI Sweden leadership
• Billy Jörgensen — Same pattern: from the Lindholmen network to AI Sweden

This "revolving door" pattern reveals that Lindholmen and AI Sweden are, in practice, tightly interwoven organisations with the same management culture, and no clear boundary between them.

47 MSEK in a Black Box

The investigation identifies 47 million kronor of AI Sweden funding that lacks detailed accounting. The money has been disbursed, but recipients, purpose and results are not transparent.

Consequences for Swedish AI Policy

This structure has serious consequences for the development of Swedish AI:

• Project selection: Projects that benefit the Wallenberg sphere are prioritised, while innovators and startups outside the Wallenberg network are marginalised
• Knowledge and capital: Large companies already have resources; AI Sweden should be distributing public funds to increase competition, not to entrench the Wallenberg monopoly
• Democratic legitimacy: A state-funded organisation should not be governed by the same companies that receive its resources
• Loss of scrutiny: The absence of a conflict-of-interest policy creates a system in which criticism becomes difficult to raise without being seen as a threat to established power

Conclusion of the Investigation

AI Sweden is designed in a way that makes it nearly impossible for the steering committee to make impartial decisions. This is not a question of individual integrity — it is a systemic design that presupposes that conflicts of interest will arise.

Addressing this would require:

• A formal conflict-of-interest policy with clear definitions and procedures
• External audits of resource allocation
• Separation of steering committee members from projects and companies in which they have an interest
• Transparency for all funding above 5 MSEK