The push for creating a more competitive and liberalized system for traditional public services, including waste management, has been on the European agenda since the late 1980s. In 2008, changes were made in EU waste legislation allowing source-separated industrial/commercial waste that is suitable for incineration to be traded within the European market. This change has had broad implications for the Danish waste sector, which is characterized by institutionalized municipal control with all streams of waste and municipal ownership of the major treatment facilities allowing the municipal sector to integrate combustible waste in local heat and power generation. This article, applying an institutional approach, maps the institutions and actors of the Danish waste sector and analyses how the regulatory as well as normative pressure to liberalize has been met and partly neutralized in the institutional and political context. The new Danish regulation of 2010 has thus accommodated the specific requirement for liberalization, but in fact only represents a very small step towards a market-based waste management system. On the one hand, by only liberalizing industrial/commercial waste, the Danish Government chose to retain the main features of the established waste system favouring municipal control and hence the institutionalized principles of decentralized enforcement of environmental legislation as well as welfare state considerations. On the other hand, this has led to a technological and financial deadlock, particularly when it comes to reaching the recycling targets of EU, which calls for further adjustments of the Danish waste sector.
AsquerA (2011) Liberalization and regulatory reform of network industries: a comparative analysis of Italian public utilities. Utilities Policy19: 172–184.
2.
BarleySRTolbertPS (1997) Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies18: 93–117.
3.
BøgelundM.LarsenA (2004) Fordele og ulemper ved liberalisering af affaldsforbrænding og deponering (Advantages and disadvantages of liberalization of waste incineration and landfilling). Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
4.
BøgelundMWillumsenEJensenMP (2002) Effektiviseringspotentiale på forbrændingsanlæg og deponeringsanlæg i Danmark (Rationalisation potentials in incinerators and landfills in Denmark). Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
5.
BrixLL (2010) Environmental impact of EU trade liberalization. In: Brix LL, Essays on Solid Waste Generation – Economics, Regulation and Environmental Concerns, Aarhus University, pp. 103–126.
6.
BusckO (2007) Marketization of refuse collection in Denmark: social and environmental quality jeopardized. Waste Management Research25(4): 384–391.
7.
ChristensenTH (2004) Miljøvurdering af affaldssystemet for dagrenovation I Århus Kommune (Environmental assessment of the waste management system for municipal waste in the Municipality of Aarhus). Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark.
8.
ClementF (2009) Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: proposition for a ‘politicised’ institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Science43: 129–156.
9.
Copenhagen Economics (2004) Liberalisering af affaldsforbrænding, (Liberalization of waste incineration). Danish Industry and ELSAM.
10.
DanishEPA (2003) Skal husholdningernes madaffald brændes eller genanvendes? Samfundsøkonomisk analyse af øget genanvendelse af organisk dagrenovation (Should household waste be incinerated or recycled? Economic analysis of increased recycling of organic household waste). Miljøprojekt nr. 814. The Ministry of Environment.
11.
DanishEPA (2010) Forbrænding af affald: Afrapportering fra den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe vedrørende organisering af affaldsforbrændingsområdet (Incineration of waste: Report from the inter-ministerial working group on the organization of waste). The Ministry of Environment.
12.
DanishEPA (2011) Forbehandling og biogasanlæg til organisk dagrenovation i 2011 – kan de tidligere problemer fra Helsingør og Århus forebygges?The Ministry of Environment. www.danmark-uden-affald.dk
13.
DanishEPA (2013) Affaldsstatistik 2013 (Waste statistics 2013). The Ministry of Environment and Food. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
14.
Danish Government (2013) Danmark uden affald. Genanvend mere – forbrænd mindre (Denmark without waste. Recycle more – incinerate less).
15.
Danish Parliament (2012) Affaldsbekendtgørelsen: BEK nr. 1309 af 18/12/2012. (Waste Order). Copenhagen: National Parliament of Denmark
16.
Danish Waste Association, DI and Dansk Energi (2014) BEATE Benchmarking af affaldssektoren 2014 (BEATE Benchmarking of the waste sector 2014). Copenhagen: Danish Waste Association.
17.
DuboisM (2013) Towards a coherent European approach for taxation of combustible waste. Waste Management33(8): 1776–1783.
18.
Ea Energianalyse (2010) Rammeværkets betydning for affaldsforbrændingens konkurrenceevne (Significance of the framework for waste incineration competitiveness). Copenhagen: Ea Energianalyse.
19.
European Commission (2000) Guide to the Implementation of Directives Based on the New Approach and the Global Approach.
20.
European Commission DG ENV (2012) Use of Economic Instruments and Waste Management Performances: Final Report 10 April 2012. Bio Intelligence Service.
21.
European Union (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. Official Journal of the European Union, L 312/3.
22.
Eurostat (2013) Waste Statistics Database. Municipal waste generation and treatment, by type of treatment method Eurostat. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ (accessed 1 April 2016).
23.
GiddensA (1984) The Constitution of Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
24.
Government, The Conservative Party, Venstre and The Socialist People’s Party (1993) Aftale mellem regeringen, Det Konservative Folkeparti, Venstre og Socialistisk Folkeparti om øget anvendelse af biomasse i energiforsyningen og til industrielle formål (Agreement between the Government, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Socialist People’s Party on increased use of biomass in energy production and for industrial purposes). Energi-, Forsynings- og Klimaudvalget 2015-16. EFK Alm.del Bilag 100. Copenhagen: National Parliament of Denmark
25.
HermansenD (2012) Danish municipal solid waste incinerators with R1 status, Communication from the Danish EPA, 13/02/2012.
26.
HoffmanAJ (1999) Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal42: 351-371.
27.
ImperialMT (1999) Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management24: 449–465.
28.
Incentive Partners (2010) Scenarier for liberalisering af affaldsforbrænding i Danmark (Scenarios for liberalization of waste incineration in Denmark). Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Finance.
29.
JeppersonRL (1991) Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In: PowellWWDiMaggioPJ (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 143–163.
30.
KirkebyJ (2005) Modelling of life cycle assessment of solid waste management systems and technologies. PhD thesis, Institute of Environment & Resources, Technical University of Denmark.
31.
KirkebyJTChristensenTH (2004) Miljøvurdering af affaldssystemet for dagrenovation i Århus Kommune (Environmental assessment of the waste management system for domestic waste in the Municipality of Aarhus). 2nd ed. Project report, October. Institute of Environment & Resources, Miljø & Ressourcer, Technical University of Denmark.
32.
KirkebyJTBirgisdottirHHansenTLChristensenTHBhanderGSHauschildM (2006) Environmental assessment of solid waste systems and technologies: EASEWASTE. Waste Management & Research24: 3–15.
33.
KleisHDalagerS (2007) 100 Years of Waste Incineration in Denmark. From Refuse Destruction Plants to High-technology Energy Works. Copenhagen: Babcock & Wilcox Volund, and Ramboll.
34.
KrasnerSD (1988) Sovereignty. An institutional perspective. Comparative Political Studies21(1): 66–94.
35.
MortensenLJohnsenHGroesEChristiansenASimonsenJHKjersgaardA (2011) Kommunernes fremtidige rolle vedrørende forbrænding af affald – Analyse af konsekvenser for kommuner og kommunale anlæg ved konkurrenceudsættelse, herunder pligt til udbud af husholdningsaffald, RenoSam and Kommunernes Landsforening (Municipalities future role for incineration of waste – analysis of consequences for municipalities and municipal facilities by exposure to competition, including the obligation to supply of household waste). RenoSam and Local Government Denmark.
36.
MunckafRosenschöldJRozemaJGFrye-LevineLA (2014) Institutional inertia and climate change: a review of the new institutionalist literature. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change5(5): 639–648.
37.
OstromE (1999) Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. In: Sabatier PA, Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 35–71.
38.
OstromEGardnerRWalkerJ (1994) Games, and Common Pool Resources. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
39.
PolanyiK (1957) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
40.
PowellWWColyvasJA (2007) New institutionalism. In: CleggSBaileyJR (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 976–980.
41.
ScheinbergASimpsonM (2015) A tale of five cities: using recycling frameworks to analyse inclusive recycling performance. Waste Management Research33(11): 975–985.
