Content uploaded by Lucie Tungul
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lucie Tungul on Dec 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 21
e Nordic Countries’
‘Exceptionalism’ in EU
Environmental Policy
Lucie Tunkrova
Abstract: e Nordic countries have a long tradition of regional cooperation. e end of
the Cold War and the subsequent accession of Finland and Sweden to the European Union
created the necessity to redefi ne the nature of this collaboration model. e traditional pat-
tern of Nordic ‘exceptionalism’ could no longer be applied and the Nordic countries have
gradually turned to the European Union as the main arena for not only the promotion of
their national but also regional interests. While the Europeanisation of Nordic coopera-
tion has, to some extent, diluted the original model of Nordic ‘exceptionalism,’ defi ned as
being better than the others but also a model that could be applied elsewhere, it has also
aff ected the European Union, where the Nordic countries have to some extent ‘nordicised’
the EU. e paper uses the example of Nordic countries’ eff ect on the EU environmental
policy to show how sub-regions in the EU might shape European policies.
Keywords: Nordic exceptionalism, EU environmental policies, Nordic cooperation
e Nordic countries often utilise their long tradition of regional1 cooperation in
various international forums. Decades of collaboration in the Nordic Council led to
the harmonisation of national legislation in areas of low politics and the subsequent
eff orts to promote common goals globally. In the post-Cold War era, the European
CES4-2.indd 21CES4-2.indd 21 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/200822 Articles
Union (EU) has become a dominant arena and instrument of these eff orts. e coor-
dination of national representations’ positions allows the subsequent approximation
of promoted goals often based on frequent contacts between their administrations.2
All Nordic countries consider environmental policy a key national interest that they
strive to endorse at all levels of international negotiations. As early as 1982, during
the negotiations on the protection of the stratospheric ozone layer, Denmark (that
Andrew Jordan and Andrea Lenschow label as the European Union’s greenest state)
(Jordan and Lenschow 2000: 109), Finland, Norway and Sweden collectively aspired
to introduce the internationally most rigorous binding directives. Jussi Raumolin
labelled the Nordic countries as ‘environmentally benign’ (Lindell and Karagozoglu
2001: 39), while Claes Bernes called them countries ‘which are deeply concerned
about the environmental policies’ (Lindell and Karagozoglu 2001: 39).
e Nordic countries have managed to substantially aff ect EU legislation regard-
ing environmental policy, and as such they represent a rather illustrative example of
how small states3 can usefully utilise their coalition potential for pursuing a policy
that they consider part of their key national interest, while building on their experi-
ence with regional cooperation. e Nordic countries comprise something that can
be called the Nordic region, or, in the context of the EU, a sub-region. e Nordic
region can be understood in the sense employed by Iver B. Neumann or Carina
Keskitalo, who argue that it developed as ‘a choice made on specifi c historical and
political grounds’ (Keskitalo 2007: 108). us, the region is in this view not a given
but constructed. is approach assumes that the people in the region have some
sense of collective identity and/or share certain characteristics as a pre-condition for
the construction of the region. e theory of constructivism puts primary emphasis
on the importance of language as a shared characteristic while ‘the creation of a re-
gion must be seen as a political act and traced to historical developments, situations
and activities of certain groups that have brought it into being (Neumann, cited
in Keskitalo 2007: 188). Accordingly, the role of elites is crucial for the success of
constructing a region. e developments in the Nordic region support the premises
of this theory as we can fi nd similar language, common historical and institutional
characteristics, and the active involvement of elites in constructing the region and
deepening the cooperation within defi nite established limits.
e Nordic countries share certain economic, political, cultural, social and geo-
graphical characteristics. As a region they include Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Nor-
way and Sweden, as a sub-region in the EU then only Denmark, Finland and Sweden
since Iceland and Norway are not members of the EU.4 ey are considered to be
the ‘most similar systems’ with specifi c institutional, ideological and political features
that distinguish them from the rest of the world (Ingebritsen 1998: 54). Lee Miles
identifi es seven shared characteristics: parliamentary democracy, competitive market
economy, welfare state policies (including a high standard of social policy, environ-
CES4-2.indd 22CES4-2.indd 22 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 23
mental protection and open democracy), commitment to national sovereignty and
a strong national defence, internationalism, emphasis on an open global economy,
and close attachment to the Nordic identity (Miles 1996: 7–8). Carl-Einar Stålvant
defi nes them as small, homogenous, rich, secular, industrially advanced and with
the exception of Denmark scarcely populated countries with similar political and
economic institutions and party systems, with similar culture, language (except for
Finnish and Saami) and shared history (Stålvant 1990: 126). All this has developed
into the concept of ‘nordicity,’ a term that appeared after World War II and sum-
marized the above-mentioned characteristics and the perceived notion of uniqueness
or even Nordic ‘exceptionalism,’ which according to Christopher Browning became
not only part of the Nordic regional but also national identity of the Nordic states.
is sense of ‘exceptionalism’ often implied not only being better than the others but
also a model that could be ‘implemented elsewhere’ and this combination of creating
an image of ‘nordism’ while aiming at ‘exporting’ the values led to the development
of a ‘Nordic brand.’5
We should not, though, consider them identical systems as while we can fi nd
many similar features, they are individual countries with individual characteristics.
e Nordic region combines cooperation with competition where partnership/inspi-
ration and competitiveness/rivalry are two sides of the same equation. As cooperation
widens and deepens, it also presents a growing range of areas that they cannot agree
on. In this respect, we need to distinguish between perceived and actual level of co-
operation, because what Browning calls ‘marketing of the Nordic brand’ (Browning
2007: 31) might not always be fully matched with reality, i.e., the Nordic countries
keep separate national identities and whilst in some areas such as social policy or
environmental protection, we witness high levels of cooperation, they pursue indi-
vidual paths in many other, which can also be witnessed in the European Union.
None of the Nordic countries is a strong supporter of European integration, which
was for a long time perceived as incompatible with the Nordic model of welfare state
and the neutrality of Sweden and Finland. Intergovernmental Nordic cooperation
through the Nordic Council was for decades seen as a suitable alternative successful
due to its sector policy nature (cooperation and integration in areas of low-politics).
e changes in international relations in the early 1990s opened a new debate on
the future of Nordic cooperation and the relationship between the EU and the four
Nordic countries outside of the EU. Finland and Sweden entered the EU in 1995
joining Denmark, which became a member in 1973 and leaving Norway and Iceland
behind. is development led to the gradual Europeanisation of Nordic cooperation,
when it had to re-defi ne itself because their designation as ‘peaceful societies’ was
losing importance in the post-Cold War era. Nordic cooperation in the EU was
perceived as a new impetus to Nordic cooperation and is a key source of the Nordic
platform today.
CES4-2.indd 23CES4-2.indd 23 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/200824 Articles
e European Union as an arena of Nordic cooperation became even more salient
as the eff orts of Nordic countries to continue with their Cold War role of mediators in
international confl icts became increasingly sidelined, which culminated in the post-
September 11th world (Browning 2007: 37). As a result, the Nordic countries have
increasingly turned to the EU as a source of multiplying their power and promoting
their national interests not only in security and foreign policy issues but in sector
policies as well. Browning argues, however, that the EU has been aff ected too, so
Nordic cooperation is becoming more Europeanised while the EU is becoming more
‘Nordicized’ (Browning 2007: 40). According to Katie Laatikaninen, this develop-
ment makes the Nordic model less distinguishable and erodes its ‘exceptionalism’
(Laatikainen, citied in Browning 2007: 40), which, however, needs to be understood
in pre-1990 terms.
e 1990s signalled a transformation of Nordic cooperation into a pattern more
compatible with the new realities and especially focusing on the European Union.
e Nordic countries have tried to work together to put their preferences across and
move them to the top of the EU agenda. In other forums (United Nations, Council
of Europe, etc.) they maintain the traditional level of cooperation if the EU has not
adopted a common position. is indicates that European integration does not need
to obliterate regional cooperation and its patterns and modes of conduct but it might
alter their agendas. If they are able to adapt to the new conditions of cooperation,
the European Union can ensure their survival even though it, in itself, cannot help
being infl uenced at the same time. (Sub)regional integration should not serve the
goal of forming voting blocs or permanent coalitions in the EU but to coordinate the
positions of mainly small and medium size countries with their partners, and in this
way strengthen their position in the enlarged European Union while increasing the
transparency and predictability of the EU decision-making system. Browning asserts
that in this respect, the Nordic sub-region ‘remains a front runner and potential
model’ (Browning 2007: 37) for other EU Member States and the other European
sub-regions.
e success of this approach has been documented by research on the cooperation
of Member States in the EU and the coalitions in the Council. Peter Silárszky and
René Levínský and also Mika Widgrén consider the Nordic countries one of the EU
sub-systems, which Philippe De Schoutheete defi ned as: groups of countries that tend to
form coalitions in the EU Council more often than others and Peter Silárszky and René
Levínský as: permanent and predictable cooperation between two or more countries.6
For Bruce Russett Nordic regionalism represents one similar to that of the Benelux,
the two sub-systems par excellence. He argues that both the Nordic countries and the
Benelux were exposed to attacks or protection of neighbouring powers. eir fate de-
pended on the ability to cooperate so as to increase their manoeuvring space and ensure
autonomy from external threats. He labels both as eff ective EU sub-systems (Russet,
CES4-2.indd 24CES4-2.indd 24 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 25
cited in Stålvant 1990: 134). Several authors have confi rmed that the Nordic countries
form coalitions with each other more often than with other countries (Widgrén 1993:
334–335), which can be observed, for example, in environmental policy issues, social
policy or indirect taxation (Hosli 1996: 260).
However, that does not mean that they do not contact other countries as their number
of votes in Council requires support of many more Member States. Simply, in some is-
sues they tend to pre-negotiate their positions before looking for other partners required
to pass, amend or stop, the proposed legislation.7 e Nordic countries have been iden-
tifi ed by a number of scholars and policy-makers as a ‘natural’ coalition of countries in
the EU Council for their long tradition of compromise and shared interests in certain
policy sectors. Even though the countries themselves deny a coordinated eff ort to form
stable coalitions, their long history of regional cooperation that allows the coordination
of positions on a pool of shared interests increases their ability to jointly put across
those preferences that they share and in which they have traditionally collaborated. If we
refrain from calling them a voting bloc, which cannot be confi rmed by the data obtained
from the voting records of the EU Council, we could call them a group of countries that
often combine their powers to promote goals that they consider shared interests.
In the case of the environmental policy, the Nordic countries utilise their pattern
of cooperation combined with an early interest in the policy and the consequent
long and rich experiences with environmental protection and the eff orts to promote
it nationally, regionally (Nordic Council, EU) and globally (UN). ey carry the
reputation of environmental forerunners both in their domestic policies and in their
international activities in various forums. e experience also serves a utility function
as they can off er business solutions developed by Nordic companies to some envi-
ronmental problems. e scientifi c expertise and knowledge helps them collect evi-
dence and off er solutions. When the former Swedish Minister for environment, Anna
Lindh, commented on the success to include producer responsibility into the auto/oil
EU Directive, she said: ‘ e small countries won with facts.’ (Kronsell 2002: 295)
For the Nordic countries, the European Union is a signifi cant arena for the pro-
motion and endorsement of their priorities in environmental policy as it can be con-
sidered one of the leading promoters of environmental protection in the world and
as it multiplies their strength as individual and/or sub-regional actors. Some authors
believe that the acquis regulating the environmental policy are some of the greatest
successes of European integration (Sbragia 1993: 337). Jürgen Gerhards and Holger
Lengfeld assert that for the European Union today, ‘environmental protection and
policies on CC [climate change] are as important as freedom of movement, social
market economy, and gender equality rights’ (Gerhards and Lengfeld 2008: 337).
e EC environmental policy originally developed without a legal basis in the EC
primary law. e interest in environmental protection increased in the late 1960s
and during the 1970s. France became the fi rst country to establish a special state
CES4-2.indd 25CES4-2.indd 25 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/200826 Articles
ministry to cover environmental issues. France also swayed the other Member States
(MS) to discuss environmental concerns during the 1972 EC summit, which re-
ceived support mainly from Germany and the Netherlands, the two MS with the
most stringent national standards in environmental protection. eir business lob-
bies were worried that they could be at an economic disadvantage if other MS would
not have to apply the same rules as their national legislation required. e other MS
fi rst opposed, claiming that such policy would hamper international trade but step
by step the EC adopted a position that transnational character of pollution requires
not only national but also international (and supranational) solutions.
Following the 1972 summit, an Environmental Council was set up in 1973 and
throughout the 1970s met once a year. e same year the Council adopted the
fi rst Action programme8 for the years 1973 till 1977.9 e fundamental change was
introduced by the Single European Act (SEA) that institutionalised the policy and
strengthened the competencies of the European Parliament, which was to become the
‘greenest’ European Union’s institution (Lindholm n.d.: 13). e Maastricht Treaty
extended qualifi ed majority voting to almost all areas of environmental policy, to
which the co-decision procedure would now also apply. Finally, in the 2007 Lisbon
Treaty, the EU competences were further extended to include climate change and the
fi ght against global warming as goals of the European Union. e enlargement by
ten new Member States in 2004 and two more in 2007 were signifi cant in extending
EU’s competencies in environmental policy to twelve more countries. e EU played
a key role in adopting the UN Kyoto protocol in 1997, launched a Climate Change
Programme in 2000 and the European Council adopted another vital decision re-
lated to climate change in 2007.10
Nordic countries — together with Germany and the Netherlands, are considered
the forerunners in environmental protection. Walter Korpi argued that it could be
attributed to a working-class mobilisation, which led to the emergence of a strong
state that is able to aff ect the ‘distributional consequences of capitalism’ (Korpi, cited
in Gough 2008: 335), John Dryzek believes that if Korpi was right, these premises
created a situation where the Nordic countries are able to cope with the environ-
mental consequences of capitalism. e fact that they are able to does not mean that
they will. He notes that in Northern Europe this was accompanied by the so called
ecological modernisation based on the principle that pollution prevention pays
economically because pollution means that the resources are used ineffi ciently and
the ‘economy benefi ts from a clean environment with happy and healthy workers’
(Dryzek, cited in Gough 2008: 335).
Lyle A. Skruggs notes that for political scientists, ‘ecological modernization will
occur if suffi cient societal, political, administrative, and organizational capacity is
available’ (Andersen 2002: 1395). Another approach highlights the importance of
changing the behaviour of individual consumers so that they start to make more
CES4-2.indd 26CES4-2.indd 26 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 27
sustainable choices: ‘individual consumers are seen as powerful market actors who
use their purchasing power to bring about social change by taking into account the
environmental consequences of their private consumption’ (Moisander, cited in Au-
tio and Heinonen 204: 141). Rauno Sairinen calls it an ‘environmentally mobilized
population’ (Sairinen 2001: 130). While some argue that this approach loses impor-
tance if ecological modernisation becomes wide-spread because we do not need to
make that many choices since the goods produced are environment — and sustain-
able development — friendly, the two need to develop simultaneously so that they
incorporate both the ‘individual and organizational level,’ i.e., citizens, companies
and public authorities (Sairinen 2001: 130).
Ecological modernisation theory argues that environmental protection will be
achieved through pressure on businesses. Companies using environment friendly
technologies will lower their production costs and increase product quality so they
will benefi t from the process. First, this approach focused on large, multi-national
companies, who had the resources, but more recently the potential of smaller busi-
nesses has also been explored. e Nordic countries — together with Germany, the
Netherlands and Japan, have the highest ranking in ecological modernisation in the
world, much higher than the UK, France or the USA. e Nordic countries do not
only have objectively high levels of ecological modernisation but are also perceived as
leaders in this policy by other countries in the EU and their public is generally aware
of their individual responsibility as consumers and citizens.11
We can fi nd evidence that a combination of both approaches has been under-
taken in the Nordic countries. e Nordic governments have actively engaged in
their development. Creating an environmentally aware population and motivating
businesses to introduce environmental friendly practices through innovation and
regulation, they endorsed the view that both complement each other. Denmark, for
example, started in the 1970s to implement measures that would regulate consumer
behaviour regarding energy, when, in order to save energy, campaigns, direct regula-
tion, and subsidy schemes were introduced to aff ect consumer behaviour. e same
approach was taken later on, when the issues of acidifi cation and the greenhouse
eff ect started to appear high on the agenda. Denmark again applied the consumer-
oriented approach. In the 1970s and 1980s, environmental social groups started to
emerge, many of whom moved to the countryside and started to grow organic food
and by 1989 managed to convince the Danish government to launch an organic
food labelling scheme.
As for the businesses, an extensive survey conducted by Bjarne Ytterhus and Terje
Synnestvedt discovered in 1995 that the managers of Nordic companies indicated that
their national governments were imposing the strictest measures on them (FI 97 %,
NO 94 %, SE 90 %), followed by customers (FI 65 %. NO 51 %, SE 52 %), and
in the case of Finland and Sweden by employees (29 % and 58 % respectively) and
CES4-2.indd 27CES4-2.indd 27 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/200828 Articles
in Norway by managers (44 %). ey concluded that managers started to address
the environmental concerns, which could be observed mainly in large companies
(Lindell and Kragozoglu 2001: 41), while also supporting innovation. Consequently,
‘Nordic companies have been able to develop innovative solutions and technologies,
which enable them to meet emission requirements while at the same time lowering
their operating costs’ (Lindell and Kragozoglu 2001: 43). us, they increased their
competitiveness because they not only used environmental production technologies
but also lowered their production costs, which was becoming increasingly important
as not only citizens of the Nordic countries but also of Europe generally were becom-
ing more aware of the environmental changes and became more environmentally
conscious.
While the Nordic public belongs to the rather eurosceptic group in the EU, envi-
ronmental policy has signifi cant support in the Nordic countries. As such, the sup-
port for European environmental policy has been utilised by their national govern-
ments to promote EU membership and to indicate its advantages. When assessing
the public opinion and environment in the Nordic countries, recent Eurobarometer
studies show that environment is personally very or fairly important to 99 % Swedes
(SE) and 97 % Danes (DK) and Finns (FI), which is high above the EU-27 average
(64 %). All three countries have above average indexes of actions that individuals
have undertaken to protect the environment (EU-27 2.6, DK 3.1, SE and FI 3.3).
Results in these three countries demonstrate the highest percentage of people who
are willing to buy environmentally friendly products and Denmark and Sweden also
display a relatively high number of respondents who have done so in the past. Fin-
land’s score is relatively low (23 %) on this one but still above EU average.12 Danish
and Swedish citizens also articulate relatively high support for the combined Euro-
pean and national level of environmental policy and almost a third in each coun-
try believes that it should be a sole European responsibility (SE 37 %, DK 29 %,
EU-27 54 %). Given the comparatively high euroscepticism in these countries, it
indicates how high a level of trust the EU has in handling environmental issues in
these two countries. e Finnish case is interesting because while the Finns seem to
be more sceptical of the EU environmental policy, they at the same time believe that
European environmental legislation is necessary for protecting the environment and
consider EU targets more positively than Denmark and Sweden do.13
CES4-2.indd 28CES4-2.indd 28 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 29
Table 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
environment is important
willing to buy environment friendly products
have bought environment friendly products
environment protection leads to innovation
support for EU environmental policy
EU environmental legislation necessary
EU should assist 3rd countrie s
EU should allocate more money on environment
I feel informed about environmental issues
Support the use of biofuels
Fight with climate change good for EU economy
SE
FI
DK
EU-27
Source: Special Eurobarometr 295 (2008) “Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment”,
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_295_en.pdf (Accessed on
7. January 2009).
Special Eurobarometer 300 (2008) “Europeans΄ Attitudes towards Climate Change”
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_300_full_en.pdf (Accessed on
15. January 2009)
All three countries have above-average scores on answers that the EU should assist
non-EU countries in improving environmental standards and that the EU should
allocate more money to the protection of the environment. e citizens also feel very
informed about environmental issues so it is not surprising that their citizens also feel
most informed about causes and consequences of climate change and the means to
fi ght it (together with the Netherlands) (Special Eurobarometr 300 2008: 19). On
the list of actions taken that fi ght climate change, all three countries scored above
the EU-27 average on almost all items. e highest number of Danes mentioned
reducing consumption of energy at home (EU-27 64 %, DK 80 %) and of Finns and
Swedes separating waste for recycling (EU-27 76 %, FI 71 %, SE 85 %).
CES4-2.indd 29CES4-2.indd 29 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/200830 Articles
With the support of the public and the need to ‘sell’ EU membership to the
domestic electorate, the priority position of the environmental policy can be docu-
mented by the high profi le declarations and programmes of national governments
and the Nordic Council. e salience the Nordic countries assign to the EU is clearly
visible in for example the document published by the Swedish Ministry of Environ-
ment called Sweden and the Environment after 10 years in the EU, where it states that
the ‘EU is a key and important political arena. In the environmental area it is obvious
— probably more obvious than in most other areas — that it requires decisions on
the European level in order to set the problem right. Cross-border pollution must
be handled with cross-border political decisions.’ e document further states that
the Swedish government prioritises environmental policy in the EU with the aim of
‘developing the most progressive environmental policy in the EU.’14
e prioritisation of environment in the EU comes forward also during the ne-
gotiations in the European Union Council and is especially visible during the EU
presidencies held by the Nordic countries — the Danish presidency represented
the EU during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg
in 2002 declaring the environment and the promotion of ‘green’ lifestyle as its main
goals there; in 2006 Finland included in its presidency’s priorities energy policy and
climate protection; Sweden is also planning to put a lot of emphasis on environ-
mental policy in its upcoming presidency in the second half of 2009. e current
government of Fredrik Reinfeldt considers environmental policy, mainly climate
protection, a key governmental interest in the EU.
ese activities have a tangible impact on EU legislation. One of the recent big
successes of coordinated eff ort of Nordic countries in the EU was the adoption of a
new regulation on chemical substances, REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authori-
sation and Restriction of Chemicals). As early as 2005 the Danish Nordic Council
presidency programme mentioned the need to allocate special resources to the imple-
mentation of projects related to REACH. Nordic countries were asked by Denmark
to jointly speed up the process of testing the impact of chemicals on the health of
citizens and on the environment in order to be able to present the conclusions to the
Commission and the other EU MS.15 eir expertise served as a vital background for
the Regulation, which was considered mainly their victory. e initiative was based
predominantly on a Swedish proposal and utilised Swedish expertise in the area.
e importance the environment has for the Nordic countries was further ac-
knowledged by organising the 2009 UN Summit on climate in Copenhagen. e
Danish government led by Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Minister for Climate
and Energy, Connie Hedegaard, hope that the negotiations will result into an ambi-
tious agreement on the protection of the world climate — and that Denmark will be
able to off er its new, environment-friendly technologies there (Larsen). All Nordic
countries are preparing for this event, individually and in mutual collaboration in
CES4-2.indd 30CES4-2.indd 30 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 31
the Nordic Council and in the EU. eir ambitious plan is to obtain higher inter-
national commitments to environmental protection, mainly from the USA, India,
China and Japan (Silberstein 2008). At the end of October 2008, the Nordic min-
isters of environment met in Helsinki, where they discussed what they as a group
expected from the 2009 Climate Summit and how they as regional cooperation and
individual countries could contribute to an agreement.
While Nordic countries cooperate in environmental issues, they often choose
diverse ways and objectives, which provides them with the opportunity to off er
alternative solutions to the discussed problems. For example, while Norway and
Sweden both have legislation that ensures public access to information about the
environmental impact of companies, Denmark introduced a diff erent approach
from that of Norway and Sweden (Nyquist 2003: 12–25). e legislation diff ers
in what type of information should be disclosed, which companies are covered and
what the purposes of the legislation are. As a result, the Danish approach seems to
target the society in general while Norway and Sweden are focusing more on the
fi nancial consequences of environmental impacts even though all three target mainly
companies that have substantial eff ect on the environment. e objectives diff er
too, while Denmark and Norway aim at the companies introducing environmental
improvements, in Sweden the main goal is to raise environmental consciousness of
the industry. e signifi cance of expertise is particularly important in the case of
environmental policy, which is highly scientifi c and requires a great deal of technical
and scientifi c knowledge that is not easy or cheap to obtain. e Nordic countries’
experience provides many good lessons to the EU and its MS, which the Nordics are
very aware of and use as leverage in negotiations.
As stated above, the Nordic countries cooperate when they fi nd a common plat-
form for their preferences and then seek support of other Member States that would
support their positions. When examining the 2006 and 2007 notes from Council
meetings, we often fi nd that they cooperated with the Netherlands, Austria, the UK,
and Germany, but at times fi nd support in countries that are less expected to cooper-
ate with Nordic countries on environmental issues, such as Portugal.16
ere is though also a number of areas, which Nordic countries do not agree
on and are forced to look for partners in other Member States — in October 2007
negotiations on sustainable development, for instance, Sweden cooperated with the
Netherlands when demanding that environmental issues related to consumption and
production should be taken into consideration during public procurement and with
Italy on demanding that it was linked with more energy eff ectiveness.17 In March
2007, on the proposal of amending the directive 2003/87/EG establishing a scheme
for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading, Finland together with France, Italy,
Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Malta and Spain demanded that periphery regions are
taken into consideration in the amendment while Finland also promised to prepare
CES4-2.indd 31CES4-2.indd 31 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/200832 Articles
a proposal in this respect. On the same proposal, Sweden and Belgium argued that
impact on a region is important but should not be included in this directive.18
We can assert that environment has high and rising salience both in the domestic
and international activities of the Nordic countries. ey are convinced that they can
present their international partners with an alternative model of economic growth
that minimizes the negative eff ects on the environment. As the general secretary of
the Nordic Council of Ministers, Halldór Ásgrímsson noted, ‘ e climate, environ-
ment and energy, are areas all the Nordic governments will prioritise in the future in
order to face up to the challenges posed by globalisation.’19 We can, consequently,
identify here the Nordic pattern of ‘exceptionalism’ believing that they are ‘better
than the rest’ and simultaneously trying to implement their ‘better’ way in other
countries. To illustrate how successful the Nordic countries have been in carrying
through their national interests in the EU environmental policy, we present the fol-
lowing case study — the policy of sustainable development.
e concept of sustainable development does not have a clear date to which we
can trace its origins. It was introduced by the World Conservation Strategy in 1980
but started to receive wider attention in 1987, when the World Commission for
Environment and Development issued a report called Our Common Future, which
defi ned sustainable development as the inevitability ‘to meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’20
e Brundtland Report as it became known (after its chairwoman, Gro Harlem
Brundtland from Norway) added social justice to ecological modernisation merging
environmental and social policies. It acknowledged that environmental pollution
was related to a wide range of economic activities such as transportation, agriculture,
tourism, etc. us, eff orts to protect the environment should be connected with
economic activities. Furthermore, it stated that environment had social implications
in terms of equity, empowerment, accessibility, and participation.21 Accordingly,
environment and social justice were here closely interlinked.
e support for the policy of sustainable development came to the forefront of
international interest after the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Human
Development in Rio de Janeiro, which followed after the Brundtland Report. is
conference gave impetus to the establishment of Agenda 21 preparing an outline
until 2050 and drew the attention of governments all around the world to the need
to actively support sustainable development. Agenda 21 required that as regards
companies, their operations should be directed towards sustainable development,
and it ‘require[d] environment to be integrated in all decision-making’ (Helminen
2000: 197).
e Nordic welfare states have been rather successful in merging their system
of social justice with environmental protection and in including environment into
various governmental policies. We have seen similar development in the European
CES4-2.indd 32CES4-2.indd 32 9.2.2010 22:52:039.2.2010 22:52:03
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 33
Union in the second half of the 1990s,22 which resulted in the Treaty of Amster-
dam formally declaring that environmental integration contributed to sustainable
development. Sustainable development became one of the key goals of European
integration. e Treaty says that the goal of the Community is to promote a ‘high
level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, the raising
of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and
solidarity among Member States.’
is development was coupled with earlier progress in individual EU policies
such as regional policy, where since 1994 MS had to comply with environmental
rules when drafting their plans for regional development. In 1996, Objective 2 pro-
grammes (applicable to regions undergoing economic and social conversion) intro-
duced ‘guidelines for environmental integration’ (Clement 2005: 296). Integration
between Structural funds and the environmental measures was extended in 1998 and
then in 1999 the European Parliament approved new regulations for regional policy
highlighting the salience of environment and sustainable development in regional
development.23 In the next programming period 2000–2006, sustainable develop-
ment became a ‘horizontal principle for all Structural Funds instruments, projects
must demonstrate not only that they respect the environment, but also that greater
consideration is given to the interrelationship between economic, social and environ-
mental dimensions’ (Clement 2005: 298).
e European Council summits continued to reinforce this universal approach:
the 1998 Cardiff Summit concluded that all key Commission proposals should also
include the evaluation of environmental impact, the 1998 Vienna Summit asked the
Commission to prepare an evaluation on how environmental policy could potentially
create new jobs and the 1999 Helsinki Summit ended with the Commission being
asked to prepare a proposal for long-term coordination strategy that would link the
environmental sustainability with economic and social development. Sustainable
development was included in the methodology for evaluating the development of
structural funds.
Consequently, the Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment
started to fi nancially support the evaluation of structural funds fi nanced projects’
contribution to the environment, which led to higher awareness of the necessity to
take into consideration the assessment of the previous and future impacts of regional
policy on sustainable development. e Finnish contribution has been crucial in this
respect as the results of the research in this fi eld supplied by the Finnish representa-
tion provided new instruments, evaluation processes and methods for improving the
current processes, which were subsequently included in the EU methodology. e
current EU strategy for sustainable development was adopted during the 2001 Gote-
borg Summit under the Swedish presidency under the title EU Strategy for Sustain-
able Development. It proposed ‘decoupling growth from resource consumption and
CES4-2.indd 33CES4-2.indd 33 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/200834 Articles
reducing the use of energy and materials,’ which was seen as one of the instruments
addressing the issues raised at the summits in Nice, Lisbon and Stockholm regarding
poverty, social exclusion and ageing population (Clement and Hansen 2001).
e Nordic countries have attempted to utilize the opportunities for promoting
sustainable development provided both by the European Union and the United Na-
tions. e UN has been a traditional arena for their coordinated eff orts and the level
of cooperation has been rather high there. at was translated not only into the ap-
pointment of two general secretaries from the Nordic countries (Trygve Lie and Dag
Hammarskjöld) but also the fact that the Head of the World Commission on the
Environment and Development, who ‘helped to popularise the concept of sustain-
able development,’ was Norwegian Gro Harlem Brundtland (future Prime Minister),
and that a high number of Nordic citizens in the UN hold executive leadership posi-
tions (about 10 % since the 1970s) (Laatikainen 2003: 410). In the case of both the
EU and UN, we can sense the support for these organisations originating from the
premise of small states that multilateralism guarantees the rights of small countries
(Hjelm-Wallen, cited in Laatikainen 2003: 414) emphasised already by Dag Ham-
merskjöld, who said that it was not the big powers that needed the UN for their
protection but the smaller states (Urquhart, cited in Laatikainen 2003: 414). e
Nordic countries have systematically used these arenas for promoting their national
interests and their values, which has been particularly visible with environmental
policy and sustainable development. As Browning argues, they ‘were rather success-
ful in marketing a ‘Nordic brand’ on the international scene’ (Browning 2007: 29),
which is complemented with the public opinion support — the Nordic countries
population is very sympathetic towards sustainable development and most sympa-
thetic in the EU.24 e Nordic countries also score very high on the global survey of
sustainable development, Sweden appeared on the top, Norway was third, Finland
fourth, Iceland sixth and Denmark fourteenth.25
e reasonably early focus on sustainable development and the awareness of en-
vironmental impact of companies and industry on the environment in the Nordic
countries has led to innovative behaviour of many Nordic companies with a substan-
tial support from the consumers. As a result, Nordic businesses and scientists can
provide the EU and its MS with expertise and it also provides them with increased
competitiveness in the increasingly more environmentally aware European market.
e fi rst country to focus on seeking new initiatives supporting sustainable develop-
ment was Finland and the interest soon spread to other Nordic countries that tried to
present a common set of evidence that progress had been made before the UN World
summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 (Clement and Hansen 2001: 93).
In 1998 the Prime Ministers of the Nordic countries published a joint declaration,
A Sustainable Nordic Region, with basic guidelines that the countries should mutu-
ally pursue under the auspices of the Nordic Council of Ministers. e Ministers
CES4-2.indd 34CES4-2.indd 34 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 35
for Nordic cooperation and Environment of not only the fi ve countries (Denmark,
Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) but also Åland Islands, Faroe Islands and
Greenland prepared a strategy operational since 2001, which focused on shared
goals translated into real policies through the Nordic cooperation institutions. Keith
Clement and Malin Hansen believe that this was ‘expected to bring considerable
advantages for economic development, competitiveness and employment, deliver-
ing new technologies and competences, and potentially leading to the creation of
new markets for Nordic products and services’ (Clement and Hansen 2001: 23).
e programme known as New Bearing for the Nordic Countries was supplemented
by additional projects such as the Action programme Spatial Planning as an instru-
ment for sustainable development, and Action Programme 2001–2004. Apart from
the support of the political elites and business leaders, the strategy targeted local
action groups, NGOs and citizens.26 Some believe that it is the shared heritage that
provides a breeding ground for Nordic cooperation in this area. Keith Clement and
Malin Hansen claim that ‘similarities between the Nordic countries with regard to
social structure, cultural background and the importance attached to promoting the
quality of life have facilitated collective formal moves towards a common policy on
sustainable development’ (Clement and Hansen 2001: 21).
However, their experience was not uniform and changed over time. Keith Clem-
ent found out that Danish regional policy in the 1980s was focusing mainly on
economic measures and started to change only in the 1990s while the Swedish policy
after accession had very broad references to only the environment. On the other
hand, Finland saw environment as a ‘mainstream factor in regional development
policy’ and as such was included in areas such as transportation, forestry or tourism
(Clement 2005: 299). By the 2000–2006 programming period, however, their focus
on sustainable development in the EU regional policy became relatively similar to
each other so that a majority of programmes included environmental indicators.
We can hence fi nd that the individual Nordic countries ‘specialise’ in particular as-
pects of sustainable development and then cooperate in their implementation. Den-
mark is concentrating mainly on the implementation of Agenda 2000 and the higher
integration in the fi eld of environmental protection as part of regional development
support. It supports several local activities such as the so-called green municipalities’
project and in 1994 established the Green Foundation to support environmental lo-
cal activities across the country. While the government has been encouraging greener
production, the consumers have been educated to demand environment-friendly
products (Christensen 2007: 94, 95), which encouraged producers not only to apply
all the regulations but also to invest into research and development. e volun-
tary activities were supplementing the increasing body of environmental legislation
and the country included environmental policy into its key national interests to be
promoted abroad. Denmark also opened its fi rst three ‘energy cities’29 — Kolding,
CES4-2.indd 35CES4-2.indd 35 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/200836 Articles
Copenhagen and Skive and there is a rising trend of the so-called ‘klimakommuner,’
climate districts, which commit to lower the CO2 emissions.
Similarly, Sweden is trying to combine environmental protection with the imple-
mentation of the goals of the EU structural policy, mainly in the areas of increasing
economic competitiveness with reducing the negative impact on the environment.
e Swedish government includes in its goals for climate policy not only domestic
changes but also their implementation in other countries while developing new tech-
nologies promoting sustainable development — with the naturally plausible eff ect of
selling them in third world countries. It acknowledges that it comprises many export
possibilities, potential for expanding the job market and increasing economic growth
in the country. In September 2008, the Swedish government issued a statement where
it stated that ‘We propose to develop Sweden’s leading role in climate and energy
policies and to make a big step towards Swedish ability to meet the goals of the EU
energy and climate package.’27 In October 2008 the Swedish government announced
that it would raise the fi nancial resources available for the research on climate change
to half million Swedish crowns till 201228 and in the very same month.
Finland focuses on the improvement of environmental protection in urban areas,
where it is trying to combine environmental and socio-economic factors. Apart from
practical measures, Finland also promotes research for new methodologies that are
aimed at involving the public and non-governmental institutions.30 ese new fi nd-
ings should then be implemented fi rst on the level of Nordic cooperation and the
European Union and then in the UN. e Nordic countries are aware that these
policies not only help to solve the problems of climate change but also have positive
economic implications.
e most recent application of the harmonised approach to sustainable develop-
ment on both the regional and European levels was the preparation of the new Arctic
strategy. In September 2008, the Nordic countries called for an EU coordinated
approach to the environment in the Arctic region that would result into a compre-
hensive EU policy for the region. ey prepared a report e European Union and
the Arctic published in August 2008 followed by a high-profi le conference Com-
mon Concern for the Arctic in September with researchers evaluating the eff ects of
climate change on the fl ora, fauna and living conditions in the Arctic and with the
representatives of the Nordic countries, EU Commission, EU Parliament and the
French presidency. e issues included in the report were climate change, globalisa-
tion, access to natural resources and skills enhancement targeting policies such as
research, the environment, fi sheries, energy and trade and also included a proposal
for a reciprocal partnership with Greenland.31 e policy was identifi ed as one of the
key goals of the Swedish EU presidency in 2009 and coincided with the EU review
of its Arctic policy. It combined the strong scientifi c background with high political
profi le, which seemed crucial for fi nding reasonable and attainable proposals for the
CES4-2.indd 36CES4-2.indd 36 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 37
policy change and for ensuring their inclusion in the agenda and their implementa-
tion.
e conference ended with a declaration of strong EU support. e EU was due
to publish its own guidelines in November, which was according to Janos Herman
from the EU Commission strongly infl uenced by the conclusions of the conference.
On November 20th, the Commission published its proposal titled European Union
Strategy for the Arctic, which was to promote sustainable management of the Arctic
region.32 e undeniable eff ect of the Nordic countries on the EU Arctic policy is
traceable already from the fact that it exists because in the EU only Sweden and Fin-
land have territories in the Arctic region. e Commission’s proposal then directly
states that ‘ e Nordic Council of Ministers does valuable work promoting Arctic
cooperation’ and the proposals for action directly addressed the need to cooperate
with and coordinate the activities with the Nordic countries.33
e Nordic countries also plan to discuss the issue during the 2009 UN Climate
Summit highlighting the typical Nordic model of combining local, national, region-
al, EU and global approaches to solving the environmental problems and of ensuring
their publicity and attention while guaranteeing that local initiatives and solutions
are taken into account, which involves both the local and national economies. e
strong support of the public, Denmark hosting the summit and Sweden holding
the EU presidency at that time off er a promise of a proactive approach during the
negotiations and some tangible product as a result.
e Nordic Countries have always been considered key proponents of a greater
international coordination in the protection of the environment and the introduc-
tion of international norms, which would coordinate and guarantee environmental
protection. After the fourth enlargement, a group of EU MS emerged that pro-
moted stricter environmental protection. is group includes Germany, Benelux,
Denmark, Austria, Sweden and Finland (Winkler 1998: 399). It, thus, expanded the
group of countries that had been labelled as the EC green countries — Denmark,
Netherlands, Germany and the UK. Denmark was also taken for the most radical
advocate of the EU environmental policy and the country that is seen as the driving
force behind the introduction of the environmental chapter into the SEA, which
modifi ed the status of the policy from de facto to also de iure.34
After the entry of Sweden and Finland into the EU, Denmark gained stronger
support and the Nordic countries did not need to rely only on the coordination of
their steps in the Nordic Council. is cooperation continues as the Nordic ministers
of environment meet after each meeting of the EU Council, as the Danish and Finn-
ish ministers for environment, Connie Hedegaard and Jan-Erik Enestam confi rm:
‘ e environment is a good example of an area in which Nordic co-operation can
contribute to raising the standards of the EU. We are still facing many challenges to
keep the Baltic Sea clean. Environmental problems cross borders therefore we must
CES4-2.indd 37CES4-2.indd 37 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/200838 Articles
seek international solutions.’ 35 e success of the Nordic countries when promoting
national interests in the EU lies with the clear defi nition of national interests that
the wide political spectrum can agree on, governments’ prioritisation of the area and
the consistent approach to their promotion in the EU utilising the additional tools
provided by the Nordic model of cooperation.
e accession of the Nordic countries to the EU added a new dimension to their
traditional cooperation, the European arena, where they could apply the experiences
acquired in the United Nations and in other multilateral forums.36 e nature of
their cooperation has, however, been defi ned more by pragmatism and intergovern-
mentalism than supranationalism, which has been also a feature of them being small
states that resist the melting of their national sovereignty, or as some say autonomy.
us, they feature high levels of coordination and cooperation but also individual
approaches where common ground has not been developed yet. ese individual
advances are, though, shared and might be adopted by the other countries if found
useful and worth ensuing.
As the EU starts to gain a higher recognition in the UN,37 the Nordic countries
try to merge their eff orts and perceive the EU as an important player in formalizing
their interests in their policies, where environmental policy and particularly sustain-
able development play a very important role. Consequently, the ‘Nordic eff ort is
now directed towards infl uencing European policy. e focus of continued Nordic
cooperation is not to present a cohesive, autonomous Nordic position to the rest of
the world, but to work together informally to fi nd ways of infl uencing European
policy’ (Latikainen 2003: 435) and if needed also European policy in the UN. e
Nordic countries are convinced that the EU has as a result become more ‘Nordic’
rather than them becoming more ‘European’ (Latikainen 2003: 436).
Notes
1 Nordic cooperation including all Nordic countries will be referred to in this paper as regional cooperation and
collaboration of the three Nordic countries, which are members of the EU (Denmark, Finland, Sweden) as
sub-regional because it takes place mostly inside of the EU.
2 One tenth of their state offi ces has contact once a day or once a week and one third once a month or more often.
e state administration that is directly involved in the EU aff airs has the frequency of contacts approximately
twice as high. Jacobsson, Bengt and Per Lægreid et. al. (2001) Europaveje. EU i de nordiske centralforvaltninger.
København, s. 165.
3 Small states are defi ned in the EU by their relatively small population given that the power of the state in the
Council of the European Union is determined by the population size (i.e. Sweden and Finland qualify as small
states). Alternatively, the literature on small states in international relations also examines the area and gross
domestic product. A state can be small in population but large in area and wealth such as Norway (has total area
CES4-2.indd 38CES4-2.indd 38 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 39
slightly larger than Germany and second highest GDP per capita among OECD countries, 65 % higher than
the average) or small in area and population but economically strong, for example Luxembourg (wealthiest of
all OECD countries).
4 It also includes three dependent territories, Greenland that left the EU in 1985, Faroe Islands (excluded from the
EU) and Åland Islands (have a special status within the EU, excluded from the EU fi scal policy).
5 Browning, Christopher (2007) ‘Branding Nordicity. Models, Identity and the Decline of Exceptionalism’, Coop-
eration and Confl ict 42, 1: 27, 35. Heidi Haggrén notes that their collaboration in UNESCO, where they wanted
to create the image of Norden and to export the Nordic values, provides a good example of this approach. Cited
in Browning 2007: 35.
6 Silárszky, Peter and René Levínský (1999) ‘Coalition Formation and Eastward Expansion of the EU. Implications
for the Council’, Prague Economic Papers, Vysoká škola ekonomická Praha, Available at: http://www.vse.cz/pep/cislo.
php3?cislo=1&rocnik=1999 (Accessed on 15 July 2003); Widgrén, Mika (1993) ‘A Nordic Coalition’s Infl uence
on the EC Council of Ministers’ in Jan Fagerberg and Lars Lundberg (eds) European Economic Integration: A Nordic
Perspective, pp. 332–352. Avebury: Aldershot, pp. 343.
7 In the case of environmental policy, we often see Nordic countries voting against a proposal if they perceive it as
not ambitious enough, for example in the case of Regulation on Nutrition and Health. ey also often support
each others’ national statements, which was the case of Denmark supporting Sweden on the position that health
and environmental concerns aff ect agriculture.
8 Action programmes are frameworks providing general rules for policy making. ey are usually adopted for fi ve
years. ey have recommendation status and are not legally binding. However, they carry substantial political
weight because they represent the Commission’s priorities for the given period.
9 First Action Programme focused on the negative eff ect of pollution on environment. Some central elements of
the fi rst Action programme such as the principle polluter pays are still key defi ners of the policy today. Second
Action Programme was initiated in 1976 and the third in 1983. e third Action programme was particularly
important as it highlighted the necessity to relate environmental policy to other Community policies, mainly
agriculture, energy, industry and transport.
Lindholm, Arto (n.d.) ‘Finland in EU Environmental Policy. e Finnish Ministry of Environment’.
Availableat: www.environment.fi /download. asp?contentid=14545&lan=en (Accessed on 10 July 2004), p. 11
10 In March 2007 the heads of EU MS adopted a long-term strategy (targets to be met by 2020) for energy policy
including binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions, developing renewable energy sources, promoting energy
effi ciency and promoting biofuels.
Council of the European Union (2007) ‘Brussels European Council Presidency Conclusions’. Available at:
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st07/st07224-re01.en07.pdf (Accessed on 10 January 2009).
11 Drake, Francis, et al. (2003) ‘European Businesses, National Priorities: Pioneers and Laggards of Ecological
Modernization’ European Environment, 13: 166. See also for the case studies on Germany, UK and France.
12 Minna Autio and Visa Heinonen mention that there is an ongoing debate in Finland why people do not want
to pay for green electricity. e authors found when interviewing young people in Finland that while they are
aware of environmental issues, they do not really engage in personal activities to protect the environment other
than recycling and managing waste and to some extent shopping in second hand shops/fl ee markets. Autio,
Minna and Visa Heinonen (2004) ‘To Consume or Not to Consume? Young People’s Environmentalism in
CES4-2.indd 39CES4-2.indd 39 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/200840 Articles
the Affl uent Finnish Society’ Young, 12. Several other polls show that Finland even though belonging to the
prosperous countries with high standard of living, displays lower interest in the environment than other wealthy
countries. Still, Finns are concerned about environmental issues and support strong role of the state in protecting
the environment – as we saw in the Eurobarometer survey. Rauno Sairinen points to the relatively wide support
for preventive measures, where the state has many powers but relatively low support for personal sacrifi ce,
especially of fi nancial nature. He believes that the reasons lie in the relatively good state of Finnish environment,
high standard of Finnish environmental policy and belief that environmental problems are not as much of local
or national but of global nature. Here, the Finns see many problems in the environment of Eastern European
countries. He then explains their attitudes diff er from the neighbouring Nordic countries because they are rooted
in the specifi cs of Finnish identity related to living in a relatively large country with very low population density
of 16 inhabitants per km2 (Netherlands is app. 393 inhabitants per km2, Sweden 20 per km2), their general belief
that they have close relationship with nature also caused by late urbanisation and lack of urban culture, and
the fashion of summer cottages in the rural areas that developed in the 1960s and is still very popular. He then
concludes by arguing that the Finns consider environmental issues legitimate and if the government would make
them pay more for it, a vast majority would accept it. Sairinen, Rauno (2001) ‘Public Support for Environmental
Policy in Finland: Cultural Interpretations of Survey Results’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 24, 2: 129–148.
It is also interesting that the Finns show very high support for the statement that ‘policies that aim at protect-
ing the environment lead to motivation to innovate rather than create obstacles to economic development’
(EU-27 63 %, FI 79 %, DK 71 %, SE 63 %), which might be related to the relatively high involvement of
Finnish companies in developing new, green, technologies. us, we could say that based on these conclusions,
the Finns are not going to develop more personal actions but if asked or forced to do it by the authorities, they
would accept it.
13 In DK EU reduction and increase in EU renewables targets are seen as too modest by 27 %, resp. 34 %, in SE
by 31 %, resp. 34 %, and in FI by 17 %, resp. 17 %, the majority of Finns then sees them as about right.
14 Regeringskansliet faktablad (2005) ‘Sverige och miljön efter 10 år i EU’, available at: http://www.regeringen.se/
content/1/c6/04/44/90/fdd9f0a7.pdf (Accessed on 14 September 2008).
15 Other priorities of the Danish presidency for the year 2005 included limits on the negative eff ects of noise and
economic analyses of the impact of limiting pesticide usage in the Nordic region.
Norden i en ny tid. Viden, dynamik og samarbejde. Nordiska radet, http://www.norden2005.dk (Accessed 20 April
2004), pp. 15.
16 In March 2007 when the EU presidency was looking for support to establish binding targets for renewable
energy as part of the EU climate policy until 2020, Sweden and Denmark stated together with Portugal that they
would support it if it included further development of decisions made by the Energy Council.
17 Regeringskansliet (2008) ‘Rådets möte (miljöministrarna) den 30 oktober 2007 i Luxemburg’. Available at:
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/6745/a/91188 (Accessed on 14 September 2008).
18 Regeringskansliet (2008) ‘Rådets möte (miljöministrarna) den 20 februari 2007 i Bryssel’. Available at: http://
www.regeringen.se/sb/d/10155/a/77013 (Accessed on 14 September 2008).
19 ‘Nordic Countries Unite to Find Climate Solutions’, Nordic News Weekly. Available at: www.norden.org/webb/
news/news.asp?lang=6&id=7855 (Accessed on 26 July 2008).
CES4-2.indd 40CES4-2.indd 40 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 41
20 Sovereignty International, I.n.c. (n.d.) ‘Introduction to Sustainable Development’. Available at: http://sover-
eignty.net/p/sd/sdtut.htm (Accessed on 10 January 2009).
21 Clement, Keith (2005) ‘Environment and Sustainable Development in the EU Structural Funds: a Review of
Nordic Performance’ European Environment, 15: s. 297. Dryzek uses the examples of hurricane Katrina in the
USA, which showed that the most vulnerable people suff ering from the eff ects of climate change are the poor,
which can be off set by a redistributive social policy. (Dryzek, cited in Gough 2008: 335).
22 is is not limited to the Nordic countries only but they could be perceived as the pioneers in this respect,
together with the Netherlands, another ‘green’ country. ere is another dimension of relationship between
environmental and social welfare – some environmental policies such as ‘green’ taxes can have negative eff ect on
the situation of some social groups, mainly the poor. us, a policy is needed to off set the unequal distribution
of these negative eff ects. For some see Markandya and Oritz, cited in Gough 2008: 341. ere has been an
increasing amount of research done on this issue, many focusing on measuring the eff ects of policies introduced
in the Nordic countries, but the results are not fully conclusive and we will need more studies conducted to be
able to fully assess the possible impacts. Nevertheless, they show that there is a direct relationship between the
two policies and we need to keep them in mind.
23 e 1999 regulations included the following provisions: the rates of contribution may be diff erentiated on
the basis of the regional importance attached to the protection and improvement of the environment; Struc-
tural Funds partnerships at all levels (national, regional and local) must include organisations concerned with
environmental protection and sustainable development; the European Regional Development Fund must be
seen to support the clean and effi cient utilisation of energy and the development of renewable energy sources;
environmental considerations are to form a greater part of evaluation, especially in relation to the eff ectiveness of
integration. Clement, Keith and Malin Hansen (2001) Sustainable Regional Development in the Nordic Countries.
Stockholm: Nordregio.
24 When asked how the progress of their countries should be evaluated, 87 % of Danes, 86 % of the Swedes and
84 % of the Finns answered that it should be done based on equality of social, environmental and economic in-
dicators rather than on money based economic indicators only (EU-27 67 %). Special Eurobarometr 295 (2008)
‘Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment’. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/
archives/ebs/ebs_295_en.pdf (Accessed on 7 January 2009), pp. 38.
25 e study was conducted by Sustainable Society Foundation in 151 countries. e index is measured biannually.
It covers 22 indicators such as quality of air and water, gender equality, education, etc. e full report can be
found on http://www.sustainablesocietyindex.com/full_publication_ssi-2008.pdf
26 In order to support the aims, Denmark, Norway and Sweden also introduced an Inter-Nordic internet course for
regional and local offi cials and practitioners. For the evaluation of the course, see Strandberg, Larsgoran and Nils
Brandt (2001) ‘Sustainable Development in eory and Practice: An Inter-Nordic Internet Course for Regional
and Local Offi cials and Practitioners’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 2, 3: 220–225.
27 Regeringskansliet Pressmeddelande (2009) ‘Klimat- och energisatsningar i budgetpropositionen 2009’.
Available at: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/10902/a/110590 (Accessed on 20 November 2008).
28 Miljödepartementet Pressmeddelande (2008) ‘Klimatforskningen stärks med 500 miljoner kronor’.
Available at: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/11069/a/113994 (Accessed on 20 November 2008).
CES4-2.indd 41CES4-2.indd 41 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/200842 Articles
29 Cities with very small energy use – in Copenhagen the city decided to support biking, public transportation
and redistribution of district heating. Energi Styrelsen, (n.d.)’Pressemeddelelse fra Klima- og Energiministeriet:
Danmark får sine første tre energibyer’. Available at: http://www.ens.dk/sw76104.asp (Accessed on 20 Novem-
ber 2008).
30 In projects such as Propolis or PSSD a system of sustainability assessment was developed for activities related
to the metropolitan area Helsinki. e methodology was called Planner’s Toolbox and was also included in the
Agenda 21. A similar example was the project called Learning Sustainability, which was conducted in the north
of Finland, in Lapland. is project managed to increase the general awareness about sustainable development,
regions were exchanging information and the results were widely published in the media.
Clement, Keith and Malin Hansen (2001) Sustainable Regional Development in the Nordic Countries. Stockholm:
Nordregio. pp. 104.
31 ‘Call for Co-ordinated EU Policy on the Arctic’, Nordic News Weekly, (n. d..). Available at: http://www.norden.
org/webb/news/news.asp?lang=6&id=8035 (Accessed on 1 September 2008).
32 It has three main objectives – protecting and preserving the Arctic together with its population; promoting the
sustainable use of resources; and enhancing multilateral governance in the region.
33 Commission of the European Communities (n.d.) ‘ e European Union and the Arctic Region’. Available
at: http://www.europa-kommissionen.dk/upload/application/8a4b7e1e/uuu.pdf (Accessed on 27 December
2008).
34 It was mainly an agreement between the North and the South in the EU, where the northern countries agreed to
increase the funds for regional and social policies. In exchange, the southern countries agreed to tighten up the
environmental standards and to fi nalise the single market.
Lindholm, Arto (n.d.) ‘Finland in EU Environmental Policy. e Finnish Ministry of Environment’.
Available at: www.environment.fi /download. asp?contentid=14545&lan=en (Accessed on 10 July 2004), s. 12–13.
35 Top of Europe (2005)‘We Can Learn from Each Other’. Available at: http://www.norden.org/topofeurope/Show-
Issue.asp?lang=en-gb&issue=30#story390 (Accessed on 15 February 2006).
36 Katie Verlin Laatikainen notes that it is striking to what extent they have developed an ‘explicit, distinctive
Nordic profi le’ in the UN, being perceived as a group of states that pursues ‘international justice and human
rights and social development rather than narrow national interests.’
Laatikainen, Katie Verlin (2003) ‘Norden’s Eclipse: e Impact of the European Union’s Common Foreign and
Security Policy on the Nordic Group in the United Nations’, Cooperation and Confl ict, 38: 417.
37 For discussion, see Laatikainen, Katie Verlin (2003) ‘Norden’s Eclipse: e Impact of the European Union’s
Common Foreign and Security Policy on the Nordic Group in the United Nations’, Cooperation and Confl ict,
38: 426–427.
References
Andersen, Mikael Skou (2002) ‘Ecological Modernization or Subversion?: e Eff ect of Europeanization on
Eastern Europe’, American Behavioural Scientist, 45: 1394–1416.
CES4-2.indd 42CES4-2.indd 42 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 43
Antola, Esko (n. d.) ‘What Kind of a Union for Small States?’ University of Turku Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence.
Available at: http://vanha.soc.utu.fi /jeanmonnet/tutkimusprojektit/What%20kind%20of%20a%20Union%20
for%20Small%20States.pdf (Accessed on 15 January 2008).
Autio, Minna and Visa Heinonen (2004) ‘To Consume or Not to Consume? Young People’s Environmentalism in
the Affl uent Finnish Society’ Young, 12: 137–153.
Browning, Christopher (2007) ‘Branding Nordicity. Models, Identity and the Decline of Exceptionalism’, Coopera-
tion and Confl ict 42, 1: 27–51.
‘Call for Co-ordinated EU Policy on the Arctic’, Nordic News Weekly, (n. d..). Available at: http://www.norden.org/
webb/news/news.asp?lang=6&id=8035 (Accessed on 1 September 2008).
Christensen, Toke Haunstrup, et al. (2007) ‘Greening the Danes? Experience with Consumption and Environ-
ment Policies’, Journal of Consumer Policy, 30: 91–116.
Clement, Keith (2005) ‘Environment and Sustainable Development in the EU Structural Funds: A Review of
Nordic Performance’ European Environment, 15: 294–312.
Clement, Keith and Malin Hansen (2001) Sustainable Regional Development in the Nordic Countries. Stockholm:
Nordregio.
Commission of the European Communities (n.d.) ‘ e European Union and the Arctic Region’. Available at:
http://www.europa-kommissionen.dk/upload/application/8a4b7e1e/uuu.pdf (Accessed on 27 December
2008).
Council of the European Union (2007) ‘Brussels European Council Presidency Conclusions.’ Available at: http://
register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st07/st07224-re01.en07.pdf (Accessed on 10 January 2009).
Drake, Francis, et al. (2003) ‘European Businesses, National Priorities: Pioneers and Laggards of Ecological
Modernization’ European Environment, 13: 164–182.
Energi Styrelsen, (n.d.)’Pressemeddelelse fra Klima- og Energiministeriet: Danmark får sine første tre energibyer’.
Available at: http://www.ens.dk/sw76104.asp (Accessed on 20 November 2008).
Flynn, Brendan (2000) ‘Is Local Truly Better? Some Refl ections on Sharing Environmental Policy between Local
Governments and the EU’, European Environment, 10: 75–84.
Gerhards, Jürgen and Holger Lengfeld (2008) ‘ e Growing Remit of the EU in Climate Change Policy and
Citizen’s Support across the Union’, in Ian Gough et al. (eds) ‘JESP Symposium: Climate Change and Social
Policy’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18, 9: 325–344.
Helminen, Riina-Riita (2000) ‘Developing Tangible Measures for Eco-Effi ciency: e Case of the Finnish and
Swedish Pulp and Paper Industry’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 9: 196–210.
Hosli, Madeleine (1996) ‘Coalitions and Power: Eff ects of Qualifi ed Majority Voting in the Council of the
European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 34, 2: 255–273.
Ingebritsen, Christine (1998) e Nordic States and European Unity. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Jacobsson, Bengt and Per Lægreid et. al. (2001) Europaveje. EU i de nordiske centralforvaltninger. København.
Jordan, Andrew and Andrea Lenschow (2000) ‘ ‘Greening’ the European Union: What Can be Learned from the
‘Leaders’ of EU Environmental Policy’, European Environment, 10: 109–120.
Keskitalo, Carina (2007) ‘International Region-Building: Development of the Arctic as an International Region’,
Cooperation and Confl ict, 42, 2: 187–205.
CES4-2.indd 43CES4-2.indd 43 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/200844 Articles
Kronsell, Annica (2002) ‘Can Small States Infl uence EU Norms? Insights from Sweden’s Participation in the Field
of Environmental Politics’, Scandinavian Studies, 74, 3: 287–304.
Laatikainen, Katie Verlin (2003) ‘Norden’s Eclipse: e Impact of the European Union’s Common Foreign and
Security Policy on the Nordic Group in the United Nations’, Cooperation and Confl ict, 38: 409–441.
Larsen, omas (2008) ‘Drøm om klimaaftale på FN-topmøde i København’ Analys Norden. Available at: http://
www.analysnorden.org/analysnorden/artikkel.asp?id=770 (Accessed on 26 August 2008).
Lee, Moosung (2004) ‘ e Small State Enlargement of the EU: Dangers and Benefi ts’, Perspectives on European
Politics and Society 5: 331–355.
Lindell, Martin and Necmi Karagozoglu (2001) ‘Corporate Environmental Behaviour – a Comparison between
Nordic and US Firms’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 10: 38–52.
Lindholm, Arto (n.d.) ‘Finland in EU Environmental Policy. e Finnish Ministry of Environment’. Available at:
www.environment.fi /download. asp?contentid=14545&lan=en (Accessed on 10 July 2004).
Miles, Lee (1996) e European Union and the Nordic Countries. London a New York: (Routledge).
Miljödepartementet Pressmeddelande (2008) ‘Klimatforskningen stärks med 500 miljoner kronor’. Available at:
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/11069/a/113994 (Accessed on 20 November 2008).
‘Norden i en ny tid. Viden, dynamik og samarbejde’, Nordiska radet. Available at: http://www.norden2005.dk
(Accessed on 20 April 2004).
‘Nordic Countries Unite to Find Climate Solutions’, Nordic News Weekly. Available at: www.norden.org/webb/
news/news.asp?lang=6&id=7855 (Accessed on 26 July 2008).
‘Nordic Eff orts before UN Climate Summit’, Nordic News Weekly. Available at: http://www.norden.org/ses-
sion/2008/sk/index.asp (Accessed on 14 November 2008).
Nyquist, Siv (2003) ‘ e Legislation of Environmental Disclosures in ree Nordic Countries – a Comparison’
Business Strategy and the Environment, 12: 12–25.
Pace, Roderick (2002) ‘A Small State and the European Union: Malta’s EU Accession Experience’, South European
Society and Politics, 7, 1: 24–42.
Regeringskansliet (2008) ‘Rådets möte (miljöministrarna) den 20 februari 2007 i Bryssel’. Available at: http://
www.regeringen.se/sb/d/10155/a/77013 (Accessed on 14 September 2008).
Regeringskansliet (2008) ‘Rådets möte (miljöministrarna) den 30 oktober 2007 i Luxemburg’. Available at: http://
www.regeringen.se/sb/d/6745/a/91188 (Accessed on 14 September 2008).
Regeringskansliet Pressmeddelande (2009) ‘Klimat- och energisatsningar i budgetpropositionen 2009’. Available
at: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/10902/a/110590 (Accessed on 20 November 2008).
Regeringskansliet faktablad (2005) ‘Sverige och miljön efter 10 år i EU’. Available at: http://www.regeringen.se/
content/1/c6/04/44/90/fdd9f0a7.pdf (Accessed on 14 September 2008).
Sairinen, Rauno (2001) ‘Public Support for Environmental Policy in Finland: Cultural Interpretations of Survey
Results’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 24, 2: 129–148.
Sbragia, Alberta (1993) ‘EC Environmental Policy’, in Alan W. Cafruny and Glenda Rosenthal (eds) e State of
the European Community, pp. 337–352. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, USA and Longman, U. K.
Silárszky, Peter and René Levínský (1999) ‘Coalition Formation and Eastward Expansion of the EU. Implications
for the Council’, Prague Economic Papers, Vysoká škola ekonomická Praha. Available at: http://www.vse.cz/pep/
cislo.php3?cislo=1&rocnik=1999 (Accessed on 15 July 2003).
CES4-2.indd 44CES4-2.indd 44 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
Contemporary European Studies 2/2008 Articles 45
Silberstein, Margit (2008) ‘Reinfeldt vill ro globalt klimatavtal i hamn’ Analys Norden. Available at: http://www.
analysnorden.org/analysnorden/artikkel.asp?id=769&ref_source=an_sk&ref_type=nl&ref_id=12-06-2008
(Accessed on 26 July 2008).
Sovereignty International, I.n.c. (n.d.) ‘Introduction to Sustainable Development’. Available at: http://sovereignty.
net/p/sd/sdtut.htm (Accessed on 10 January 2009).
Special Eurobarometr 295 (2008) ‘Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment’. Available at: http://
ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_295_en.pdf (Accessed on 7 January 2009).
Special Eurobarometer 300 (2008) ‘Europeans’ Attitudes towards Climate Change’. Available at: http://ec.europa.
eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_300_full_en.pdf (Accessed on 15 January 2009).
Sprinz, Detlef and Tapani Vaahtoranta (1994) ‘ e Interest-Based Explanation of International Environmental
Policy’, International Organization 48, 1: 77–105.
Steinsdorff , Silvia von (2007) ‘ e Small EU Member States: Engines of Integration?’ Eurotopics. Available
at:http://www.eurotopics.net/en/magazin/politik-verteilerseite/grenzen_der_erweiterung_2007_01/klein-
staaten_motoren_integration/ (Accessed on 15 January 2008).
Strandberg, Larsgoran and Nils Brandt (2001) ‘Sustainable Development in eory and Practice: An Inter-Nordic
Internet Course for Regional and Local Offi cials and Practitioners’, International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 2, 3: 220–225.
Stålvant Carl-Einar (1990) ‘ e Central European Dimension’ in William Wallace (eds) e Dynamics of European
Integration. London a New York: Routledge.
Top of Europe (2005) ‘We Can Learn from Each Other’. Available at: http://www.norden.org/topofeurope/ShowIs-
sue.asp?lang=en-gb&issue=30#story390 (Accessed on 15 February 2006).
Widgrén, Mika (1993) ‘A Nordic Coalition’s Infl uence on the EC Council of Ministers’ in Jan Fagerberg and Lars
Lundberg (eds) European Economic Integration: A Nordic Perspective, pp. 332–352. Avebury: Aldershot.
Winkler, Michael (1998) ‘Coalition-Sensitive Voting Power in the Council of Ministers: e Case of Eastern
Enlargement’, Journal of Common Market Studies 36, 3: 391–404.
CES4-2.indd 45CES4-2.indd 45 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
CES4-2.indd 46CES4-2.indd 46 9.2.2010 22:52:049.2.2010 22:52:04
