Societal Security and Emergency Law: The Necessary Role of the Business Sector

By Per Andersen, Professor of Law at the University of Southern Denmark, and Rasmus Dahlberg, researcher specializing in societal security and emergency preparedness, and external lecturer at the University of Southern Denmark

In an era where threats are constantly evolving—from cyberattacks and pandemics to extreme weather events and geopolitical tensions—Denmark faces new challenges that demand a strong and modern emergency preparedness system. But who is truly responsible when a crisis hits? And how do we ensure that private companies, which form the backbone of our national economy, are involved in a way that serves the common good while respecting business realities? Our answer is a stronger focus on emergency law.

The Business Sector as an Emergency Actor

At the end of 2024, Falck initiated Virksomhedsberedskabet ("The Business Emergency Network"), a network of private companies ready to contribute resources and knowledge during crisis situations to ensure a rapid and effective response in collaboration with public emergency services. In the political emergency preparedness agreement from January 2025, the coalition of parties decided to establish a forum for the business sector, where relevant stakeholders can discuss how private companies can best be involved and contribute to societal security and emergency preparedness with their unique competencies and capacities. It is thus clear that both politicians and the business community are aware that private companies own and operate a significant portion of Denmark’s critical infrastructure. In 2024, both the Confederation of Danish Industry (DI) and the Danish Chamber of Commerce (Dansk Erhverv) issued a number of specific recommendations to their members. In this context, the Confederation of Danish Industry has explicitly expressed the desire for the business sector to play a central role in preparedness and to be a key partner in the development of a comprehensive national emergency plan for Denmark.

The current challenge appears to be that, although there are many initiatives in this area, they are not coordinated within a unified plan—especially not with a cross-sectoral mindset, both within public emergency preparedness and—perhaps most critically—across public and private sectors.

Grey Zones and Unclear Responsibilities

This lack of coordination is not just due to the absence of an overarching strategic plan for the country's emergency preparedness. It is also because the current emergency legislation is a patchwork of provisions spread across various sector-specific regulations, both for public preparedness and for coordination with private actors. For private stakeholders, this often results in significant uncertainty about their legal obligations and possibilities. Where is the boundary between civic responsibility, private accountability, and commercial interests? When can authorities require businesses to provide resources? And who covers the costs?

The Danish Chamber of Commerce has recently pointed out that this uncertainty discourages companies from investing in resilience and preparedness, even though they are, in fact, very willing to take responsibility and play a role in ensuring societal security.

The Health Crisis as a Lesson

COVID-19 demonstrated the relevance of taking a comprehensive legal perspective on the role of the business sector in societal security. When masks and protective gear became scarce, authorities queued up for help from private manufacturers. Companies like Novo Nordisk and LEGO repurposed their production lines to make hand sanitizer and face shields, but the process also revealed legal challenges regarding approvals, standards, and liability.

During the pandemic, we saw companies voluntarily step in—but also how bureaucracy and unclear authority competencies created bottlenecks. These are precisely the kinds of situations that an updated emergency law must address.

The Need for Integrated Emergency Law

Since 1959, the principle of sectoral responsibility has been central to Denmark’s civil emergency preparedness. Section 24 of the Emergency Management Act clearly places responsibility for action: “Each minister shall, within their area, plan for the maintenance and continuation of societal functions in the event of major accidents and disasters, including preparing emergency plans.” Clear allocations of responsibility and legal authority to act are a foundational principle for organizing and implementing societal security. The time has now come to include the private sector in this equation.

Emergency law concerns itself with both the competences and organization of public authorities and the legal frameworks that govern the organization and room for maneuver of relevant civil actors—and, crucially, the coordination between the two. In public law, emergency law refers to the legal frameworks and organization of public bodies and functions that fall under government authority and that are—or to some extent can become—direct actors during major societal crises, such as the military, police, civil defense, state agencies, regions, municipalities, and public utility companies. In private law, emergency law refers to the legal conditions under which private actors operate, such as suppliers of essential goods like medicine and medical equipment, and private utility providers. These actors' interaction with public authorities is vital in handling crises—precisely the actors represented by organizations like the Danish Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of Danish Industry.

The Way Forward: Clear Competences and Cross-Sectoral Thinking

Our goal is to strengthen coordination between public and private emergency actors. Emergency law is not currently a standalone legal discipline but draws on several areas of law. The challenge is that society’s preparedness is divided by sector—but crises, especially natural disasters and hybrid threats, are not. We should follow the lead of our Nordic neighbors and develop comprehensive emergency plans based on solid legal foundations, so that coordination issues between public and private actors can be resolved. To prepare Denmark for future crises, we need a thorough and coherent modernization of the legal framework that defines and distributes roles and responsibilities in emergency preparedness—a modernization that recognizes the central role of the private sector and integrates it into public emergency planning. That is what we mean by emergency law.

Fortunately, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. There is plenty of inspiration to draw from our neighbors—if we are willing to talk, share knowledge, and evaluate across sectors in a structured way. But we must act soon.

The time for action is now. Because when the next crisis hits—and it will—we cannot afford legal uncertainty and improvisation.