Problems and Purpose

The Climate Assembly was established in October 2023 to actively involve the university community in creating climate policies that are both feasible and socially acceptable. The primary institutional objective was to evaluate whether a deliberative assembly could support the Faculty of Social Sciences in formulating practical and broadly supported climate actions. The climate assembly sought to:

1. Address the legitimacy gap by ensuring that affected stakeholders are included in the decision-making process.
2. Improve the relevance and effectiveness of climate policies.
3. Integrate expert knowledge with firsthand experience to promote genuine behavioural change.
4. Serve as a liaison between the university, community, and decision-makers.
5. Test participatory governance through a "living lab" approach. (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8).

This participatory approach was developed at the institutional level through the University of Copenhagen Faculty of Social Sciences Climate Assembly. The university has pledged to reduce emissions by 50% from 2018 levels by 2030 (University of Copenhagen, 2023) (7). Initial sustainability efforts focused on technological and operational measures, including energy efficiency improvements and reductions in work-related travel (University of Copenhagen Faculty of Social Sciences, 2024a). (1). While these initiatives achieved measurable emissions reductions, university leaders concluded that their influence on daily staff and student engagement, as well as broader behavioural change, remained limited. This assessment led to the adoption of a more participatory climate governance model through the Climate Assembly process (We Do Democracy, 2024) (2).

Background History and Context

Denmark has set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, no date) (11). The University of Copenhagen has committed to reducing its emissions by 50% from 2018 levels by 2030 (University of Copenhagen, 2023) (7). Earlier the university’s sustainability initiatives primarily focused on energy efficiency and reductions in work-related travel (University of Copenhagen Faculty of Social Sciences, 2024a) (1). The Faculty of Social Sciences determined that these measures were insufficient to achieve the necessary behavioural and organisational changes. As a result, the faculty sought to involve students and employees directly in shaping climate priorities and developing recommendations with greater internal legitimacy (University of Copenhagen Faculty of Social Sciences, 2024a (1); We Do Democracy, 2024) (2).

The initiative also aligned with the city of Copenhagen’s climate governance strategy, which incorporated climate action across infrastructure, mobility, and urban planning sectors (City of Copenhagen, 2020) (13).

Organising, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The assembly's mandate was formally established by the Dean’s Office, ensuring alignment with institutional policies and sustainability objectives. From a legal and institutional perspective, the Climate Assembly functioned as an advisory body within the University of Copenhagen's governance structure. Although members were empowered to formulate recommendations, final decision-making authority resided with institutional leadership.

The project group included Professor Lars Tønder, Communications Advisor Christopher Emil Gersbøll Ilfeldt, and Climate and Sustainability Consultant Ditte Helsted-Amskov, working in collaboration with the deliberative democracy organization We Do Democracy (University of Copenhagen, no date) (9).

The Climate Assembly was organised by several groups, each with a defined role. We Do Democracy, acted as a neutral facilitator by serving as an independent secretariat, and was responsible for designing, planning, and facilitating the process. This organisation also selected materials and inputs, guided by recommendations from the Impact Group and the Expert Group.

The Impact Group composed of external stakeholders and representatives from the University of Copenhagen with expertise in climate action, circular economy, business, media civil society, and the university governance. The Impact Group sought to maximise the influence of the Climate Assembly’s recommendations within the Faculty of Social Sciences, across the University of Copenhagen, and in wider society (We Do Democracy, no date).

The available documentation does not specify the formal criteria or procedures for selecting individual members of the Impact Group. As a result, it remains unclear whether members were nominated, directly appointed or selected through another process (We Do Democracy, no date; (4) University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8). The Impact Group included:

1. Sarah Hellebek; Teacher at Krogerup Hojskole and Board Member of Andelsgarde
2. Dorte Faeno Mondrup; Senior Project Manager, Circular Economy, Gate 21
3. Simon Weber; Member of the Youth Climate Council and Co-Founder of Danish Seaweed
4. Hanne Harmsen; Vice Dean for Green Transition, Copenhagen Business School
5. Tanja Nyrup Madsen; Editor in Chief, Mandag Morgen
6. Nille Skalts; Founder and Director of the Nordic B Corp Movement (University of Copenhagen, no date).

The Impact Group advised on the composition of the Expert Group and on procedures for conducting the Climate Assembly. Additionally, the Impact Group supported the implementation of the assembly’s recommendations. The Faculty of Social Sciences (SAMF) staff and We Do Democracy managed daily coordination, facilitated communication between the assembly and the faculty, and supported follow-up activities after the recommendations were issued (University of Copenhagen, 2024 (8).

The Expert Group was established to contribute specialist knowledge to the deliberative process and to ensure the provision of external academic expertise for the assembly (University of Copenhagen, no date) (9). The expert group was responsible for the following tasks:

1. reviewing and ensuring balance in educational materials;
2. identifying and preparing speakers;
3. ensuring neutrality and factual accuracy in all materials;
4. assisting in formulating the deliberative questions presented to assembly participants;
5. facilitating evidence-based discussions on climate and sustainability issues (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8).

The group included academics with expertise in organisational and cultural studies, business administration, industrial environmental; economics, architecture and technology and education (University of Copenhagen, no date) (9). The group included:

1. Andreas Roepstorff, Chairperson: Professor and Vice Head of Department at the School of Culture and Society, Aarhus University.
2. Julie Emontspool: Associate Professor, Department of Business Administration, University of Southern Denmark
3. Peter Arnfalk: Senior Lecturer at the International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University
4. Thorbjorn Hyldgaard Lonberg: PhD student, Department of Architecture and Technology, Royal Danish Academy
5. Jeppe Laessoe: Professor Emeritus, Danish Institute for Education & Educational Science, Aarhus University (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8).

The Expert Group facilitated the process by reviewing educational materials for balance and accuracy, identifying speakers, and providing specialist knowledge relevant to the assembly’s questions. Although the available case materials outline these functions, they do not offer a comprehensive account of the selection process for each group member (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8).

The Steering Group oversaw major project decisions, including budget allocation, mandate definition, and the development of strategies for implementing the recommendations. The group comprised a manager and staff from the Faculty of Social Sciences, as well as representatives from the third-party secretariat We Do Democracy. Existing documentation does not outline a formal selection process (University of Copenhagen, 2024).

Students enrolled in a master’s course on democratic innovation and the green transition observed the Climate Assembly. They served as process hosts and observers during meetings and conducted an independent evaluation.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Faculty of Social Sciences (SAMF) extended an open invitation to all students and staff, with the objective of engaging participants regardless of their previous involvement in climate issues. Due to insufficient initial recruitment, organisers broadened outreach efforts through lectures, student societies, and additional campus activities. Ultimately, 242 students and staff volunteered, representing approximately 4% of the Faculty of Social Sciences (SAMF) community. From this pool, 36 participants were selected using a stratified lottery administered by the independent research company Analyse & Tal. The selection process aimed to ensure diversity in gender, student or staff status, and departmental or centre affiliation staff (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8). Rather than replicating SAMF’s overall composition of approximately 90% students and 10% staff, the assembly allocated approximately 55% of places to students and 45% to staff to encourage balanced perspectives. Participants comprised of students, academic staff, and technical-administrative staff. The process was organised by We Do Democracy and adhered to OECD principles for deliberative assemblies (University of Copenhagen, 2023, (7) University of Copenhagen, 2024 (8).

Methods and Tools Used

The Climate Assembly adopted a deliberative mini-public methodology that integrates learning, discussion, and decision-making in a systematic and inclusive manner. The process commenced with expert-led presentations that supplied participants with information on institutional emissions, climate science, and policy frameworks. This approach established an informed and equitable foundation, consistent with the normative value of informed participation in deliberative governance (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8).

Members engaged in facilitated small-group discussions led by trained facilitators to promote balanced participation, mutual respect, and equal voice. This approach embodies core democratic values of inclusivity, equality, and fairness, ensuring that diverse perspectives are acknowledged and considered (We Do Democracy, n.d.) (4). The small-group format further supported deliberative equality by mitigating power imbalances commonly found in larger institutional contexts.

Plenary sessions enabled collective reflection by allowing members to present ideas, challenge assumptions, and engage in open debate. The iterative structure, alternating between small-group and plenary discussions, enhanced transparency and accountability by exposing arguments to public scrutiny and refinement.

The decision-making process of the Climate Assembly consisted of an initial prioritisation phase, followed by a final voting stage. The subsequent report documented the level of support for each recommendation (University of Copenhagen Faculty of Social Sciences, 2024).

Facilitated discussions, expert presentations, and deliberative exercises were utilized to analyse climate challenges and assess alternative solutions. These methods encouraged informed reflection and collective decision-making, thereby supporting the integration of diverse perspectives before recommendations were formulated (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8).

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The series of assemblies commenced on Tuesday, 10 October 2023, Wednesday, 25 October 2023, Thursday, 9 November 2023, and Wednesday, 29 November 2023. Members of the Climate Assembly dedicated approximately 600-630 hours across five sessions to discuss key topics (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8). The process commenced with a learning phase in which experts presented climate science, emissions data, and policy frameworks. Subsequently, small groups analysed the evidence, exchanged perspectives, and identified significant challenges in the university’s sustainability initiatives. Later sessions focused on practical collaboration. Groups addressed topics including travel, infrastructure, and education, continually refining proposals and evaluating policy options. Scenario exercises, role-playing, and simulations were employed to assess the real-world impact of various choices. During plenary sessions, groups presented their ideas, received feedback, and participated in broader discussions.

After the deliberative and consultation stages, the assembly process entered a proposal development phase during the October and November 2023 assemblies. During this phase, participants collaborated in facilitated working groups to transform ideas and discussion themes into concrete, actionable policy recommendations on climate governance, institutional sustainability practices, travel, procurement, teaching, and research priorities (University of Copenhagen Faculty of Social Sciences, 2024a) (1).

Voting and consensus-building mechanisms were implemented to ensure inclusive participation. This process included prioritising proposals and conducting final votes to identify the most widely supported recommendations. Participants were required to justify their positions with evidence, promoting thoughtful, evidence-based discussion.

There was also an open meeting for interested parties on Tuesday, 21 November 2023, focused on identifying sustainability challenges across academic travel, campus administration, and curriculum integration. The guests included:

1. Students from the Faculty of Social Sciences,
2. Members of the Impact Group,
3. Green Youth Movement,
4. Heads of department from SAMF, including, Ayo Wahlberg, Department of Anthropology, Henrik Hansen, Department of Economics, Vibeke Koushede, department of Psychology
5. Sustainability employees from UCPH
6. Researchers from the Green Research Network group (Det Gronne)
7. Members of SCIENCEradet (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8)

Attendees of this meeting provided feedback on draft climate recommendations before the launch and presentation of recommendations (We Do Democracy, 2024; (2) University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8).

The assembly produced 27 recommendations across five categories:

1. Research and education, incorporating climate topics into curricula
2. Institutional transformation. The integration of sustainability into governance frameworks was the focus of this category.
3. Infrastructure, targeting more efficient resource utilisation
4. Travel, establishing limits on air travel, and implementing carbon emissions tracking
5. Consumption, promoting plant-based diets and circular economy strategies (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8)

Notably, 88 percent of assembly members supported the introduction of mandatory basic ecological education for bachelor students, while 91 percent endorsed the creation of a Green Action Centre to facilitate connections between interdisciplinary sustainability research and external stakeholders (Esbornsen, no date) (15).

The findings were first made public on January 18, 2024, and later included in a faculty-level status report released in May 2024. The report promised to implement several measures, including stricter climate regulations for travel and improved sustainability in educational programs (University of Copenhagen, 2024; (8) KNOCA, 2023). (5)

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The assembly generated 27 recommendations addressing SAMF’s contributions to the green transition, research and education, buildings and facilities, travel and mobility, and sustainable consumption¹. The recommendations were then communicated to the university administration. Some of these recommendations have been implemented, such as those related to travel policy and integration of climate issues within the curriculum (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (1)[EH1] [GS2] [SF3] .

After their presentation in January 2024, decision-making and consultative bodies within the faculty were established including the Faculty Management Team, Faculty Collaboration Committee, Academic Council, Forum for Heads of Studies, Research Council, Climate and Sustainability Committee. Members of these bodies identified priority recommendations and determined how their respective groups could contribute to implementation (University of Copenhagen, 2024b). (8). Faculty of Social Sciences established formal three- and twelve-month reporting intervals to document their consideration and implementation (University of Copenhagen, 2024b(3).

The process resulted in several concrete effects on faculty policy development. By May 2024, a working group had been established to examine options for an inter-institutional travel fund, and departments were directed to develop travel guidelines and CO2 reduction targets. Recommendations related to travel and mobility continued to be addressed within the faculty’s formal governance structures (University of Copenhagen, 2024b). (3). Some proposals however, particularly those related to buildings and facilities, were postponed until the planned relocation to Søndre Campus (University of Copenhagen, 2024b (3).

In response to the recommendations, the Faculty of Social Sciences developed a travel policy with air travel reduction targets, developing an air-travel tax model to influence behaviour. This was reviewed by the Faculty Leadership Team and then forwarded to central university management. As of the February 2025 report, further action was still pending (University of Copenhagen, 2025).

The assembly also influenced education and research policy and the Faculty Leadership Team resolved to integrate sustainability as a theme across all affected programmes by expanding sustainability-focused lectures and courses and strengthening the social sciences’ contribution to sustainable development (University of Copenhagen, 2025) (6). The faculty indicated that sustainability would remain a priority in recruiting permanent academic staff and in funding applications (University of Copenhagen, 2025). While these actions demonstrate policy uptake, they do not constitute full implementation of the assembly’s original proposal for a mandatory standalone climate course for all undergraduate students.

By 2025, the faculty reported that the assembly’s proposals had been incorporated into the University’s UCPH One Planet sustainability framework. The report indicates that sustainability is becoming more firmly embedded within central university management, with the assembly’s recommendations serving as a key input into this evolving university-wide framework (University of Copenhagen, 2025) (16).

The faculty also aligned its participation in Denmark’s national Climate Action Day with the Climate Assembly’s recommendations, providing an additional mechanism for translating selected proposals into practical commitments. Notable changes in sustainable consumption included the Campus Service collaborating with the canteen contractor to price vegetarian and vegan sandwiches lower than meat options. Additional measures involved removing beef from the canteen, promoting locally sourced food, introducing surcharges for disposable tableware, and implementing food waste reduction efforts (University of Copenhagen, 2024b. (3). The Faculty clarified that some initiatives predated the Climate Assembly, while others were a direct response to its recommendations.

Another significant impact concerned participatory governance. In January 2024, Dean Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen publicly described the recommendations as realistic and specific and suggested that similar democratic methods could be used for other faculty issues (Esbornsen, no date) (11). The faculty later reported that insights from the assembly informed efforts to foster a stronger participatory culture during the Faculty of Social Sciences (SAMF) planned relocation to Søndre Campus and in well-being initiatives at UCPH. The faculty emphasised that the assembly reinforced the value of involvement and ongoing dialogue regarding the university’s contributions to sustainability through research, education, and institutional operations (University of Copenhagen, 2025). (16). SAMF further reports that experience from the assembly was incorporated into work concerning participatory culture at Søndre Campus and university well-being initiatives (University of Copenhagen, 2025).

The Climate Assembly influenced agenda-setting and procedural dynamics and achieved partial policy implementation rather than fully realizing its 27 recommendations (University of Copenhagen, 2024b (3); University of Copenhagen, 2025) (16). The Assembly's impact was most pronounced in generating institutional attention, integrating sustainability concerns into existing governance and planning processes, and illustrating the potential of deliberative participation within the University (University of Copenhagen, no date; University of Copenhagen, 2025) (16). Nevertheless, its effectiveness in achieving full implementation and demonstrable environmental outcomes was more constrained, as numerous recommendations remain pending, have been postponed, or were only partially executed (University of Copenhagen, 2024b; (3) University of Copenhagen, 2025) (16).

Analysis and Lessons Learned

The University of Copenhagen (UCPH) Climate Assembly aimed to integrate bottom-up participation within established institutional frameworks. This model highlights the need to connect participatory processes with established policy and governance frameworks. The assembly was incorporated into the university’s sustainability initiatives and strategic plans, as well as broader Danish climate policy and the Copenhagen Climate Plan 2025 (City of Copenhagen, 2021 (13); University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8). This alignment provided both strategic direction and institutional legitimacy. The deliberative process enabled staff and students to examine evidence, share perspectives, and collaboratively develop recommendations, illustrating a bottom-up governance approach. This approach enhanced inclusivity in climate governance by enabling university community members to directly influence institutional priorities. However, the effectiveness of such participation depends not only on the quality of deliberation but also on the degree to which recommendations are implemented as substantive institutional change (Farrell et al., 2019) (17).

Evidence suggests that deliberative assemblies are most effective when embedded within existing policy cycles and supported by decision-makers (KNOCA, 2023) (18). The University of Copenhagen exemplifies this principle, as the Dean’s Office provided a clear mandate for the assembly and formally committed to considering its recommendations.

The recruitment process reflected the diversity of the Faculty of Social Sciences, while independent facilitation and expert input ensured access to relevant knowledge and evidence. The staged structure of the assembly allowed participants adequate time to learn about climate issues, deliberate collectively, and develop specific recommendations. Collectively, these features enhanced the legitimacy of the process and demonstrated how the citizens’ assembly model can be adapted to a university context (University of Copenhagen, 2024 (8); We Do Democracy, n.d.) (4).

The assembly’s wide scope demonstrates the capacity of deliberative processes to address the behavioural and cultural dimensions of institutional climate governance. This is important because broad social and cultural change cannot be achieved solely through technical interventions. The recommendations encompassed travel, food, teaching, research, infrastructure, and organisational culture (University of Copenhagen, 2024) (8).

Despite these strengths, the case reveals significant limitations. The Climate Assembly lacked authority to make binding decisions regarding budgets, investments, staffing, or university-wide policy. Its influence on institutional outcomes depended on senior leadership and administrative structures. This highlights a common limitation of deliberative governance were participatory bodies often lack the formal authority required to ensure implementation (Skarzauskiene et al., 2025) (6).

This limitation is particularly evident in financial governance where, at the University of Copenhagen, responsibility for financial policies rests primarily with governing and administrative bodies. As a result, the direct influence of a participatory assembly over these domains is often limited (OECD, 2020) (19); Skarzauskiene et al., 2025) (6). While the assembly can identify priorities and provide recommendations, implementation ultimately depends on actors within the university’s established hierarchy. This dynamic underscores the structural tension between deliberative participation and institutional authority.

Continuity of implementation is another critical consideration and the assembly’s influence relied on ongoing institutional ownership and follow-up after the deliberative process concluded. Subsequent organisational restructuring disrupted this continuity, resulting in some recommendations reportedly being delayed, diluted, or disregarded (University of Copenhagen, 2024a (1); University of Copenhagen, 2025) (16). This outcome demonstrates that establishing a deliberative forum is only the initial phase of participatory governance. Without stable institutional structures, follow-up mechanisms, and sustained leadership engagement, recommendations risk losing momentum after the assembly concludes.

More broadly, the UCPH Climate Assembly reflects a wider European trend toward deliberative governance as a strategy for addressing complex policy challenges through participatory methods (OECD, 2020) (19). Its strengths include evidence-based deliberation, increased inclusivity, enhanced credibility, and the facilitation of shared understanding of complex climate issues (Skarzauskiene et al., 2025) (6). The case also demonstrates that deliberation alone does not ensure institutional transformation. The UCPH Climate Assembly demonstrates the potential of integrating bottom-up participation with top-down institutional support. Its representative composition, independent facilitation, expert input, and formal mandate fostered meaningful deliberation, while alignment with university and broader climate strategies provided direction and legitimacy. Nevertheless, its limited formal authority and reliance on senior leadership highlight the structural constraints of participatory governance within hierarchical institutions.

The case suggests that successful deliberative climate governance requires not only opportunities for participation but also clear pathways for recommendations to influence decisions, resource allocation, and implementation. Achieving lasting institutional change through participatory climate governance depends on stable institutional ownership, transparent follow-up mechanisms, and sustained leadership commitment.

See Also

· Citizens’ assemblies / climate assemblies (method entries, where available on Participedia).

· We Do Democracy (organization entry, or create a stub if none exists).

· University of Copenhagen / Faculty of Social Sciences (organization entry, or create a stub if none exists).

· Danish Climate Citizens’ Assembly and other Danish climate-assembly cases, where available on Participedia.

References

1. City of Copenhagen (2020) Creating the World’s First Carbon Neutral Capital. YouTube vide. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXkamwNWPgg [Accessed: February 2026].
2. David M. Farrell, Jane Suiter and Clodagh Harris (2019) ‘Systemising the deliberative mini-public’, Irish Political Studeis, 34(1), pp. 113-123
3. De Moor, J., Uba, K, Wahstrom, M., Wennerhag, M. and De Vydt, M. (2021) Protest for a Future II: Composition, Mobilisation and Motives of the Participants in Fridays for Future Climate Protests on 20-27 September 2019 in 19 cities around the World. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
4. Elinor Ostrom (2010) ‘Polycentric systems for coping with collective action’, Global Environmental Change, 20 (4), pp. 550-557.
5. Esbjornsen, A (2024) Praise for climate assembly. ‘you cant ignore a report that is so well done’. University Post. Available at: https://uniavisen.dk/en/praise-for-climate-assembly-you-cant-ignore-a-report-that-is-so-well-done/ [Accessed: June 2026].
6. Farrell, D.M., Suiter, J. and Harris, C. (2019) ‘Systematizing the deliberative mini-public’, Irish Political Studies, 34(1), pp. 113–123.
7. Fung, A. (2006) ‘Varities of Participation in Complex Governance’, Public Administration review, 66 (s1), pp. 66-75.
8. Farrell, D.M, Suiter, J. And harris, C. (2019) ‘Systemising’ constitutional deliberation: the 2016-18 Citizens’ Assembly in Ireland’, Irish Political Studies, 34 (1), pp. 113-123.
9. Faculty of Social Sciences University of Copenhagen (no date) https://socialsciences.ku.dk/climate-and-sustainability/climate-assembly/
10. House of the Oireachtas (n.d.) Joint Committee on Climate Action. Available at: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/committees/32/climate-action/ [June 2026].
11. John S. Dryzek (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press
12. Jurgen Habermas (1984) The theory of Communication Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
13. KNOCA (2023) Learning Call on the Danish Climate Assembly. YouTube video. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38niz1dDy3o [Accessed: February 2026]
14. KNOCA (2022) Key Learnings from the Danish Climate Assembly. Available at: https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/65b77644e6021e9021de8916/65ddcf2c98f2a54c71aa26fd_Key-learnings-Denmark.pdf [Accessed: March 2026]
15. KNOCA (2023) Introducing Climate Assembly. YouTube video. Available at: https://www.knoca.eu/climate-assemblies? [Accessed: March 2026].
16. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (n.d) Global Climate Action Strategy. Available at : https://um.dk/en/foreign-policy/new-climate-action-strategy? [Accessed: June 2026].
17. Newig, J., Gunther, D. and Pahl-Wostl, C. (2018). ‘Synapes in the Network: Learning in Governance Networks in the Context of Environmental Management’, Ecology and Society, 23(4), pp. 24-38.
18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2020) Innovation Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions. Paris: OECD Publishing.
19. OECD (2020) Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions. Paris: OECD Publishing.
20. Politeia (2025) ‘Participatory Governance and Democratic Legitimacy, Journal of Public Administration and Political Governance, 31 October.
21. Skarzauskiene, A. et al. (2025) ‘Assessing the effectiveness of climate assemblies’, Frontiers in Climate.
22. Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. United Nations (2023] Climate Action and COP Process explained. YouTube video available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v [Accessed: February 2026]
24. University of Copenhagen (no date) Climate Assembly: Faculty of Social Sciences. Available at: https://socialsciences.ku.dk/climate-and-sustainability/climate-assembly/ [Accessed: March 2026].
25. University of Copenhagen (2024) Recommendation report: Climate Assembly 2024. Available at: https://socialsciences.ku.dk/climate-and-sustainability/climate-assembly/Anbefalinger_webudgave.pdf [Accessed: March 2026].
26. University of Copenhagen (n.d.) Climate Assembly. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Copenhagen. Available at: https://socialsciences.ku.dk/climate-and-sustainability/climate-assembly/[Accessed: [ April 2026]
27. University of Copenhagen (n.d.) Climate Assembly – Core Question and Mandate. Faculty of Social Sciences. Available at: https://socialsciences.ku.dk/climate-and-sustainability/climate-assembly/ [Accessed: May 2026].
28. University of Copenhagen (2021) The Green Transition starts in your municipality, Faculty of Social Sciences , 26 October. Available at: https://socialsciences.ku.dk/news/2021/the-green-transition-starts-in-your-municipality/ [Accessed 22 July 2026].
29. University of Copenhagen (2024c) Recommendation Report: Climate Assembly 2024. Faculty of Social Sciences. Available at: https://socialsciences.ku.dk/climate-and-sustainability/climate-assembly/Anbefalinger_web [Accessed April 2026].
30. University of Copenhagen (no date) Lars Tonder – research Profile. University of Copenhagen Research Portal. Available at: https://researchprofiles.ku.dk/en/persons/lars-t%C3%B8nder/ [Accessed 22 July 2026].
31. University of Copenhagen (no date) Climate Assembly – Impact Group. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Copenhagen. Available at: https://socialsciences.ku.dk/climate-and-sustainability/climate-assembly/impact-group/ [Accessed: 22 July 2026].
32. University of Copenhagen (no date) Democratic Innovations in a Green Transition (DIGT)> Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. Available at:https://politicalscience.ku.dk/research/completed-projects/digt [Accessed 22 July 2026].
33. We Do Democracy (n.d.) Climate Assembly at the factuality of Social Sciences, University of Copenhagen. Available at: https://www.wedodemocracy.com/case/climate-assembly-at-the-faculty-of-social-sciences-university-of-copenhagen/ [Accessed: February 2026].
34. We Do Democracy (n.d.) Copenhagen Citizens Assembly on the Climate Area. Available at: https://www.wedodemocracy.com/case/copenhagen-citizens-assembly-on-the-climate-area [Accessed: June 2026].
35. We Do Democracy (2024) Climate Assembly at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Copenhagen https://www.wedodemocracy.com/case/climate-assembly-at-the-faculty-of-social-sciences-university-of-copenhagen/ [Accessed: April 2026].
36. University of Copenhagen (2024) Recommendation Report: Climate Assembly 2024. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Copenhagen. Available atefaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://socialsciences.ku.dk/climate-and-sustainability/climate-assembly/Anbefalinger_webudgave.pdf

External Links

1. City of Copenhagen (2020) Creating the World’s First Carbon Neutral Capital https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXkamwNWPgg
2. KNOCA (2023) Learning Call on the Danish Climate Assembly.
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38niz1dDy3o
4. KNOCA (2023) Introducing Climate Assembly. https://www.knoca.eu/climate-assemblies
5. United Nations (2023] Climate Action and COP Process explained. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0JStCjE--4

Notes

This entry has several evidence gaps. The supplied documentation does not specify the project’s total funding or budget, participant incentives, a comprehensive formal appointment procedure for all advisory-group members, or the precise voting rules beyond prioritisation, final voting, and recorded support percentages. As a result, these fields are designated as 'Not specified' or 'Don't know' until additional primary documentation is obtained.

Contributor Positionality Statements

A student researcher developed this case entry through desk-based research on participatory and deliberative climate governance. The researcher did not participate in the University of Copenhagen Climate Assembly and was not involved in its commissioning, design, facilitation, or implementation.

The analysis relies on publicly available documentary evidence rather than direct observation of the assembly or interviews with participants and organisers. In a substantial proportion of cases, institutions involved in the process provide primary evidence, including the University of Copenhagen, its Faculty of Social Sciences, and We Do Democracy. While these sources offer valuable first-hand information about the process, they may also reflect institutional and organisational perspectives regarding its design, achievements, and impact.

To reduce reliance on any single institutional account, sources were systematically compared information across university publications, organiser materials, KNOCA resources, academic literature, and other publicly available sources where feasible. Any limitations resulting from incomplete, uncertain, or unverifiable documentary evidence are explicitly identified.

The analysis draws on academic perspectives on deliberative democracy, participatory governance, sustainability transitions, and climate governance. This approach emphasises inclusion, representation, deliberative quality, institutional authority, implementation, and the relationship between participatory processes and formal decision-making structures.

This case study does not presume that deliberative participation is inherently successful. Instead, it evaluates both the Climate Assembly's democratic potential and the institutional constraints that shape its influence. Further research incorporating the perspectives of assembly participants, organisers, facilitators, university staff, and decision-makers could provide a more comprehensive and pluralistic account of the process.