Skip Navigation

Denmark

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 5

ON THE PAGE

Current Action Plan

2023-2025

Action Plan 5

  • Number of Commitments: 5
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

Denmark’s fifth action plan focuses on civic participation, digital innovation, and open data. Most of the commitments started before the action plan with modest potential to stretch existing practices. The Agency for Digital Government should ensure that Denmark meets OGP’s Participation and Co-Creation Standards during implementation through regular dialogue with civil society and reporting on the progress of the action plan. (More)

Contact

Point of Contact

Leander Otto Wieshau Desk Officer, Agency for Digital Government, Ministry of Digital Government and Gender Equality leawie@digst.dk

Commitments

Resources

  1. Denmark Action Plan Review 2023-2025

    2024, IRM Report, Web page

  2. Denmark Action Plan Review 2023-2025 – For Public Comment

    2024, Report Comments, Web page

  3. Denmark – Under Review Letter (August 2023)

    2023, Letter, Web page

  4. Denmark Action Plan 2023-2025 (June)

    2023, Action Plan, Web page

  5. Denmark – Contrary to Process Letter (February 2023)

    2023, Letter, Web page

  6. Denmark Co-Creation Brief 2022

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  7. Denmark Design Report 2019-2021

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  8. IRM Regional Snapshot: Nordics

    2020, Resource, Web page

  9. Denmark Design Report 2019-2021 – For Public Comment

    2020, Report Comments, Web page

  10. Denmark End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2017-2019

    2020, Self Assessment, Web page

  11. Denmark Implementation Report 2017-2019

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  12. Denmark Implementation Report 2017-2019 – For Public Comment

    2020, Report Comments, Web page

  13. Denmark Action Plan 2019-2021

    2020, Action Plan, Web page

  14. Denmark Design Report 2017–2019

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  15. Denmark Design Report 2017-2019 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  16. Denmark Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report 2017-2019

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  17. OGP Letter – Denmark – November 2017

    2017, Letter, Web page

  18. Denmark Action Plan 2017-2019

    2017, Action Plan, Web page

  19. Denmark Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  20. Denmark End-of-Term Report 2014-2016

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  21. OGP Letter to Denmark Regarding Shift to ‘Odd Year’ Action Plan Schedule: January 2017

    2017, Letter, Web page

  22. OGP Letter to Denmark Regarding Late Action Plan: November 2016

    2017, Letter, Web page

  23. Denmark End-of-Term Report 2014-2016 – For Public Comment

    2017, Report Comments, Web page

  24. Denmark End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2014-2016

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  25. OGP Letter – Denmark – January 2017

    2017, Letter, Web page

  26. Late Letter – November 2016 – Denmark

    2016, Letter, Web page

  27. Denmark IRM Progress Report 2014-2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  28. Denmark 2014-2015 IRM Progress Report for Public Comment

    2016, Report Comments, Web page

  29. Denmark Action Plan 2013-2014

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  30. Denmark IRM Progress Report 2012-2013

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  31. Denmark, Midterm Self Assessment Report, 2014-2016

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  32. Denmark Action Plan 2012

    2013, Action Plan, Web page

Current Data

The data below is updated periodically, most often after large numbers of new action plans and IRM reports.

Commitment Performance

The following variables answer the question “Did this commitment open government?“, and focus on how government practices have changed as a result of the commitment’s implementation.

Key

No IRM data

Pending IRM Review

Download
Major
Outstanding
Starred Commitments
Action Plan 1
2
Action Plan 2
1
0
0
Action Plan 3
0
0
0
Action Plan 4
1
0
0

Global

Most per action plan
4
7

Regional

Most per action plan
4
7

How to Get More Starred Commitments

Starred commitments in OGP are one of the ways the IRM designates promising reforms. The graph below shows where the major areas for improvement in action plan design and implementation should take place based on past action plans.

Key

Stars (Global average 7%)

Focus on implementation

Focus on design

Pending IRM review

No IRM data

Focus on design

Focus on objectives and impact (ambition/potential impact)

Focus on relevance to open government

Focus on verifiability

Download

Public Participation

This table shows: 1) the level of public influence during the development and implementation of OGP action plans, 2) whether consultations were open to any member of the public or only to those invited; and 3) whether a forum existed that met regularly.

Key

Participation was closed

Participation was open to any interested party

No IRM data

Forum

Pending IRM review

Definitions

Collaborate: Iterative dialogue and public helped set agenda

 

Involve: Government gave feedback on public inputs

 

Consult: Public gave input

 

Inform: Government provided public with information on plan

Download
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Development

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Implementation

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4

OGP Global Report Data

The data below is drawn from the 2019 OGP Global Report. You can view and learn more about the report here.

Selected Dimensions of Open Government

This section captures how each OGP member can play a leadership role, based on IRM-based findings and third-party scores. This list does not cover all of open government and OGP members are not required to take any action.

Action implications

These are recommendations on the role that each OGP member might play in each policy area. The recommendations are derived from a combination of the IRM-based findings and third-party scores.

IRM-based findings

Reflect the performance of commitments in a particular policy area, as assessed by the IRM.

 

(NC) No Commitments
(CA) Commitment(s) in the policy area.
(IR) IRM-Reviewed: At least one IRM-assessed commitment.
(C) Was Complete: At least one commitment was substantially or fully completed.
(A) Was Ambitious: At least one commitment with moderate or transformative potential impact.
(ER) Showed Early Results: At least one commitment opened government in a “Major” or “Outstanding” way.

Third-party scores

Reflect “real-world” performance, i.e., performance outside of the OGP framework. Scores are comprised of various indicators collected by respected organizations.

Download

Anti-Corruption

Beneficial Ownership
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.00 Sources
Open Contracting
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.57 Sources

Civic Space

Freedom of Assembly
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.85 Sources
Freedom of Association
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.95 Sources
Defending Journalists and Activists
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.58 Sources

Open Policy Making

Participation in Lawmaking
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
4.00 Sources
Regulatory Governance
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.80 Sources

Access to Information

Right to Information
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.53 Sources
Open Data (Water / Sanitation)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.00 Sources
Open Data (Health)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.00 Sources
Open Data (Education)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.40 Sources

Fiscal Openness

Transparency
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Participation
Action Implications
No data
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Oversight
Action Implications
No data
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data

Recent Posts

6203558248_45a438dd6c_o
Sweden · Norway · Finland · Denmark

What’s Next for Open Government in the Nordics

The Nordics top the rankings on good governance, showing strong institutions, rule of law, and high levels of public trust See what they're doing in OGP.

presidential palace in Bratislava, Slovakia in the sunny summer day
Slovak Republic · Denmark

Using Slovakia’s Beneficial Ownership Register for Impact

Lessons from Reformers: Along with Denmark, Slovakia was one of the first countries to publish beneficial ownership information.

United Kingdom · Ukraine · Denmark

Revealing true corporate owners is key to fighting “dirty money”

Money laundering and corruption keeps making headlines. Danske Bank, Denmark’s largest lender, is reeling from a EUR 200 billion money-laundering scandal that erupted in September, the same month Dutch bank ING was hit with a EUR 775 million fine for…

Show More
Open Government Partnership