Denmark Design Report 2019-2021
Denmark’s fourth action plan continues to mainly focus on fostering public trust and transparency through open data. Notable commitments include creating a database with information on workplace safety and the introduction of whistleblower protection schemes with in the sphere of the Ministry of Justice. Future action plans could focus on improving transparency around lobbying and political financing.
|Table 1. At a glance
Participating since: 2011
Action plan under review: 4
Report type: Design
Number of commitments: 7
Action plan development
Is there a multistakeholder forum: Yes
Level of public influence: Involve
Acted contrary to OGP process: No
Action plan design
Commitments relevant to OGP values: 7 (100%)
Transformative commitments: 0
Potentially starred commitments: 0
The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a global partnership that brings together government reformers and civil society leaders to create action plans that make governments more inclusive, responsive, and accountable. The Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) monitors all action plans to ensure governments follow through on commitments. Denmark joined OGP in 2011. Since, Denmark has implemented three action plans. This report evaluates the design of Denmark’s fourth action plan.
General overview of action plan
Denmark continues to perform well in most areas of transparency and anti-corruption. The fourth action plan continues to focus mainly on improving transparency and trust in the public sector through open data and digitisation initiatives. The commitments address a variety of topics, such as workplace safety, climate and water data, case handling in the social services sector, and whistleblower protection.
Denmark’s multi-stakeholder forum met once to develop the commitments for the fourth action plan, and stakeholders were invited to provide proposals around the policy areas that the Agency for Digitisation (AfD) had already identified. While the process was open to anyone interested, few non-governmental stakeholders participated.
Notable commitments include creating a database with information on workplace safety (Commitment 2) and the introduction of whistleblower protection schemes within the sphere of the Ministry of Justice (Commitment 7).
Table 2. Noteworthy commitments
|Commitment description||Moving forward||Status at the end of implementation cycle|
|Commitment 2: Open data on workplace health and safety
Create a centralised database with information on workplace environments in Denmark.
|During implementation, the Danish Working Environment Authority could undertake awareness-raising activities such as hackathons to broaden interest and render data available to different user groups. This could be done with support from organisations such as Open Data.dk who facilitate open data seminars and inter-municipal data coordination.||Note: this will be assessed at the end of the action plan cycle.|
|Commitment 7: Whistleblower schemes within the Danish Ministry of Justice
||The Ministry of Justice could share the ongoing reporting on the whistleblower schemes with civil society and allow for comments and inputs. In addition, the Ministry of Justice could undertake broader awareness-raising campaigns to ensure constructive perceptions of whistleblower schemes in public workplaces.
|Note: this will be assessed at the end of the action plan cycle.|
IRM recommendations aim to inform the development of the next action plan and guide implementation of the current action plan. Please refer to Section V: General Recommendations for more details on each of the below recommendations.
Table 3. Five KEY IRM Recommendations
|Consider relocating the OGP mandate to an agency with greater policy-making influence within the Ministry of Finance or Ministry of Justice|
|Expand participation to a broader segment of stakeholders, including non-governmental organisations|
|Take initial steps towards the establishment of an open register on lobbying|
|Expand whistleblower schemes to encompass newly adopted EU directive|
|Close loopholes in the legal framework for political financing|