Arguments over Realities: Organizational Strategizing in the Climate Labeling Debate in Denmark

Abstract

This paper investigates how organizations formulate strategies on policy questions by conducting a case study of the process of designing a consumer-facing climate label for foodstuffs in Denmark, which was ongoing at the time of writing. The point of departure for the analytical angle of the study was challenging the reductionist view of organizational interests reproduced in dominant strands of theory in economics and political science, which proposes that an organization’s interests can be inferred by knowing said organization’s output, or conversely, that strategy choices are the same as an organization’s true interests. Seeking to answer the question “How have stakeholders to the climate labeling debate on food products in Denmark formulated their positions on the issue?”, this paper deploys an analytical framework based on Woll’s framework for strategy formulation (2008), supplemented with typologies of legitimacy and power, to carry out an analysis of the strategy formulation process of a variety of organizations. Through conducting interviews with representatives of 17 stakeholder organizations, the research project had initially set out to investigate the broad discourse on climate labeling of foodstuffs in Denmark, but as a working group on climate label policy was founded during the data collection process, the analysis is focused on 11 out of the organizations interviewed who are members of this working group. The analysis conducted in this study found that the widespread support for climate labeling among agricultural producers in Denmark is primarily associated with the signals from the EU, that there may be legislation forthcoming, which would force the producers to abide by EU Product Environmental Footprint (“PEF”) standards in order to make green marketing claims to consumers. Other stakeholders not affected by the potential EU legislative initiative do not unanimously support the introduction of a climate label, as they doubt that it would be sufficiently complex and able to induce changes in consumer behavior. The paper concludes by offering five recommendations to the participant stakeholders in the working group, intended to aid the creation of an effective and inclusive climate label.