Consensus-Building
#6Key Findings
Germany performs well in international comparison (rank 6) in the category of consensus-building.
Political decisions on long-term issues and in immediate crises like the pandemic rely on consultations with the scientific community. This process involves routine advice from numerous expert advisory boards as well as ad hoc consultations in more urgent situations.
There is no official, regularized process for meetings between the government, trade unions and business organizations. However, such organizations play an advisory role in the political process, wielding appreciable influence. Social welfare and environmental organizations primarily serve in advisory capacities, and do not participate directly in policymaking.
The Federal Open Data Act requires federal authorities to publish data in open formats. Basic government data is broadly available, and the government scores well on open government indexes. Availability of research data and data reuse are weak points.
Political decisions on long-term issues and in immediate crises like the pandemic rely on consultations with the scientific community. This process involves routine advice from numerous expert advisory boards as well as ad hoc consultations in more urgent situations.
There is no official, regularized process for meetings between the government, trade unions and business organizations. However, such organizations play an advisory role in the political process, wielding appreciable influence. Social welfare and environmental organizations primarily serve in advisory capacities, and do not participate directly in policymaking.
The Federal Open Data Act requires federal authorities to publish data in open formats. Basic government data is broadly available, and the government scores well on open government indexes. Availability of research data and data reuse are weak points.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent is the government successful in effectively harnessing the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes?
10
9
9
The government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
5
4
3
4
3
Only rarely is the government able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
2
1
1
The government is not able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
In Germany, the formulation of political decisions – whether concerning strategic, long-term issues such as climate policy or immediate crises like the pandemic and energy crises – is intricately woven with extensive consultations within the scientific community. This consultative process stands on two foundational pillars: first, routine engagements and policy recommendations from well-established scientific advisory boards; and second, on-demand, ad hoc consultations that have assumed an increasingly pivotal role, particularly in addressing urgent decision-making requirements during recent crises.
Central to the established advisory framework are scientific advisory boards within individual ministries, whose members are chosen based on their academic expertise and a diversity of academic perspectives, within the bounds of accepted scientific principles. These boards enjoy a notable degree of autonomy in selecting their focus areas and organizing their work. Several other esteemed expert advisory bodies, such as the German Council of Economic Experts and the German Advisory Council on the Environment, contribute expertise and advice through regular reports on prevailing policy challenges.
The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) has played a consequential role in pandemic decision-making through its meticulous monitoring of objective data. Additionally, the German Ethics Council has showcased a high profile in media discussions and governmental decisions, particularly on ethical quandaries arising during the pandemic, such as vaccine distribution priorities and the role of mandatory vaccination. Finally, the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina and the National Academy of Science and Engineering (acatech) regularly provide scientific expertise on various topics.
Temporary commissions, featuring leading researchers in the relevant policy field, are established for specific reform topics. Another avenue for scientific guidance is provided by parliamentary expert hearings. For significant legislation, Bundestag committees conduct expert hearings, which are transparently broadcast through Bundestag television. Despite occasional concerns that experts are selected based on their alignment with specific positions, these hearings serve as a crucial instrument for providing scientific advice to the parliament. The Bundestag also benefits from its own scientific service, which offers succinct summaries of the scientific state of knowledge to its members through briefings.
Ad hoc scientific advice is organized flexibly, involving bilateral conversations and larger rounds of experts in digital talks. This approach has become standard practice during crises, including the pandemic and recent energy challenges. Noteworthy policy decisions, such as those addressing the surge in gas and electricity prices during the energy crisis, have been shaped through close collaboration with researchers advising on optimal design.
The frequency of advice depends on the urgency of the situation, with recent crises necessitating even weekly digital expert meetings with ministers. Critically, all significant crisis-related decisions by the German government in recent years have been informed by scientific insights. Challenges, however, arise in the realm of long-term reform, where a prevalent political present-bias impedes acceptance of viable, forward-looking solutions. An illustrative example is the German pension system, where resistance against comprehensive reform, including adjustments to the statutory pension age, persists despite scientific recommendations. While complaints from non-governmental experts about superficial participation surface occasionally, the broader German scientific community generally recognizes that their advice is considered by policymakers, even if, constrained by political realities, decisions may not consistently align with this advice.
Central to the established advisory framework are scientific advisory boards within individual ministries, whose members are chosen based on their academic expertise and a diversity of academic perspectives, within the bounds of accepted scientific principles. These boards enjoy a notable degree of autonomy in selecting their focus areas and organizing their work. Several other esteemed expert advisory bodies, such as the German Council of Economic Experts and the German Advisory Council on the Environment, contribute expertise and advice through regular reports on prevailing policy challenges.
The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) has played a consequential role in pandemic decision-making through its meticulous monitoring of objective data. Additionally, the German Ethics Council has showcased a high profile in media discussions and governmental decisions, particularly on ethical quandaries arising during the pandemic, such as vaccine distribution priorities and the role of mandatory vaccination. Finally, the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina and the National Academy of Science and Engineering (acatech) regularly provide scientific expertise on various topics.
Temporary commissions, featuring leading researchers in the relevant policy field, are established for specific reform topics. Another avenue for scientific guidance is provided by parliamentary expert hearings. For significant legislation, Bundestag committees conduct expert hearings, which are transparently broadcast through Bundestag television. Despite occasional concerns that experts are selected based on their alignment with specific positions, these hearings serve as a crucial instrument for providing scientific advice to the parliament. The Bundestag also benefits from its own scientific service, which offers succinct summaries of the scientific state of knowledge to its members through briefings.
Ad hoc scientific advice is organized flexibly, involving bilateral conversations and larger rounds of experts in digital talks. This approach has become standard practice during crises, including the pandemic and recent energy challenges. Noteworthy policy decisions, such as those addressing the surge in gas and electricity prices during the energy crisis, have been shaped through close collaboration with researchers advising on optimal design.
The frequency of advice depends on the urgency of the situation, with recent crises necessitating even weekly digital expert meetings with ministers. Critically, all significant crisis-related decisions by the German government in recent years have been informed by scientific insights. Challenges, however, arise in the realm of long-term reform, where a prevalent political present-bias impedes acceptance of viable, forward-looking solutions. An illustrative example is the German pension system, where resistance against comprehensive reform, including adjustments to the statutory pension age, persists despite scientific recommendations. While complaints from non-governmental experts about superficial participation surface occasionally, the broader German scientific community generally recognizes that their advice is considered by policymakers, even if, constrained by political realities, decisions may not consistently align with this advice.
Graph View
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
Trade unions and business organizations generally have only an advisory role in the political process in Germany. However, they still wield some political influence. These groups are part of the self-governing bodies of social security insurances. Representatives from both sides are often invited to participate in public hearings in parliament as experts or stakeholders. They also contribute to legislative initiatives on issues of central importance to capital and labor. Furthermore, representatives from unions and employers’ organizations sit on numerous advisory boards and bodies that advise the federal government (Rütters/Mielke, n.d.).
One exception to the limitation on advising roles is the minimum wage commission, which is entitled to set the minimum wage. It is composed of three representatives each from the trade unions and business organizations, plus one chairman (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, 2023). However, the new government elected in 2021 decided to set the minimum wage themselves and raised it to €12 per hour. After that, the usual process allowing the commission to decide the minimum wage was restored (Lesch et al., 2021, p. 194), at least for the time being.
There are no official, regular meetings between trade unions, business organizations, and government officials. However, certain ministers – first and foremost the minister of labor and the minister for economic affairs, and sometimes even the chancellor himself – meet regularly with representatives from capital and labor to discuss current affairs. It is difficult to determine how much the government acts upon these consultations.
In July 2022, Chancellor Olaf Scholz met with trade unions and business organizations for a “concerted action” (Konzertierte Aktion) but did not invite the federation of small and medium-sized businesses (Bundesverband der Mittelständischen Wirtschaft). This omission was heavily criticized by the federation (Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, 2022). That being said, criticism of or dissatisfaction with too little participation in the political process is rare.
In Germany, wage bargaining operates autonomously. Trade unions and employers’ organizations negotiate wages and working conditions without political intervention. Consequently, the government does not interfere in collective bargaining rounds and is typically not entitled to resolve disputes between unions and business organizations (Strünck, n.d.). Pleas from the government and other political institutions usually do not influence the collective bargaining rounds and are typically rejected by the negotiating parties swiftly. Additionally, there are no serious debates about limiting the function of autonomy in wage bargaining (Lesch et al., 2023: 26).
Citations:
Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund. 2023. “Mindestlohnkommission: Aufgaben und Mitglieder.” https://www.dgb.de/schwerpunkt/mindestlohn/++co++916083ea-bd10-11e4-93f3-52540023ef1a
Lesch, H., Bach, H., and Vogel, S. 2023. “Tarifautonomie in der Legalitätskrise.” https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/policy_papers/PDF/2023/IW-Policy-Paper_2023-Tarifautonomie-Legitimit%C3%A4tskrise.pdf
Lesch, H., Schneider, H., and Schröder, C. 2021. “Anpassungsverfahren beim gesetzlichen Mindestlohn: Argumente gegen eine politische Lohnfindung.” List Forum für Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik 47 (2-4): 193-217.
Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk. 2022. “Entlastungen: Scholz trifft sich mit Arbeitgebern und Gewerkschaften.” https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/deutschland/politik/kampf-gegen-inflation-scholz-treffen-arbeitgeber-100.html
Rütters, P., and Mielke, S. n.d. “Gewerkschaften.” Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202034/gewerkschaften
Strünck, C. n.d. “Tarifpolitik/Tarifautonomie.” https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202193/tarifpolitik-tarifautonomie/
One exception to the limitation on advising roles is the minimum wage commission, which is entitled to set the minimum wage. It is composed of three representatives each from the trade unions and business organizations, plus one chairman (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, 2023). However, the new government elected in 2021 decided to set the minimum wage themselves and raised it to €12 per hour. After that, the usual process allowing the commission to decide the minimum wage was restored (Lesch et al., 2021, p. 194), at least for the time being.
There are no official, regular meetings between trade unions, business organizations, and government officials. However, certain ministers – first and foremost the minister of labor and the minister for economic affairs, and sometimes even the chancellor himself – meet regularly with representatives from capital and labor to discuss current affairs. It is difficult to determine how much the government acts upon these consultations.
In July 2022, Chancellor Olaf Scholz met with trade unions and business organizations for a “concerted action” (Konzertierte Aktion) but did not invite the federation of small and medium-sized businesses (Bundesverband der Mittelständischen Wirtschaft). This omission was heavily criticized by the federation (Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, 2022). That being said, criticism of or dissatisfaction with too little participation in the political process is rare.
In Germany, wage bargaining operates autonomously. Trade unions and employers’ organizations negotiate wages and working conditions without political intervention. Consequently, the government does not interfere in collective bargaining rounds and is typically not entitled to resolve disputes between unions and business organizations (Strünck, n.d.). Pleas from the government and other political institutions usually do not influence the collective bargaining rounds and are typically rejected by the negotiating parties swiftly. Additionally, there are no serious debates about limiting the function of autonomy in wage bargaining (Lesch et al., 2023: 26).
Citations:
Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund. 2023. “Mindestlohnkommission: Aufgaben und Mitglieder.” https://www.dgb.de/schwerpunkt/mindestlohn/++co++916083ea-bd10-11e4-93f3-52540023ef1a
Lesch, H., Bach, H., and Vogel, S. 2023. “Tarifautonomie in der Legalitätskrise.” https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/policy_papers/PDF/2023/IW-Policy-Paper_2023-Tarifautonomie-Legitimit%C3%A4tskrise.pdf
Lesch, H., Schneider, H., and Schröder, C. 2021. “Anpassungsverfahren beim gesetzlichen Mindestlohn: Argumente gegen eine politische Lohnfindung.” List Forum für Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik 47 (2-4): 193-217.
Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk. 2022. “Entlastungen: Scholz trifft sich mit Arbeitgebern und Gewerkschaften.” https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/deutschland/politik/kampf-gegen-inflation-scholz-treffen-arbeitgeber-100.html
Rütters, P., and Mielke, S. n.d. “Gewerkschaften.” Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202034/gewerkschaften
Strünck, C. n.d. “Tarifpolitik/Tarifautonomie.” https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202193/tarifpolitik-tarifautonomie/
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading social welfare CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
Social welfare associations and initiatives can highlight certain issues in the public eye, draw attention to political problems, and build pressure for change. However, their political role in Germany is primarily advisory.
After the publication of a draft law, organizations such as chambers, churches, and civil society organizations (CSOs) are free to comment on it before it is discussed in the Bundestag, the German parliament. They thus have the opportunity to shape discussions about upcoming laws, both in public and within the Bundestag. Sometimes, organizations are specifically invited by the responsible ministry to comment on a draft law. These comments are made public on the website of the ministry responsible for the draft law (Bundesministerium für Finanzen, n.d.).
The current government has shortened the official period for commenting on draft laws many times recently. This has left associations and experts with too little time to fully understand and react to proposed legislation. This practice has been heavily criticized by some organizations (RedationsNetzwerk Deutschland, 2023).
CSOs are sometimes consulted by the Bundestag or certain ministries. While this has historically been limited, there has recently been an increase in consultation opportunities for CSOs. The involvement of social welfare CSOs in decision-making and the development of draft laws varies greatly among different ministries. These organizations mainly use lobbying to gain political influence. Certain recognized associations have the Right of Association (Verbandsklagerecht) to take legal action on behalf of the public (Hummel et al., 2022: 3, 71). Apart from that, social welfare CSOs do not participate in the policymaking process, and there are no serious discussions to extend their role.
Free welfare work in Germany is primarily organized under six main organizations, such as the Red Cross, Caritas, and Diakonie. These social welfare CSOs perform numerous social tasks, caring for sick or disabled people, the elderly, and youth. Additionally, they operate many hospitals and residential homes for the elderly and disabled (Bundesregierung, 2020). Consequently, they assist the government in caring for the most vulnerable in society, which makes them politically powerful and influential. Without them, the German welfare state would collapse.
The six free welfare head organizations participate in various advisory councils in federal ministries, particularly in the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (Bundesregierung, 2019).
Another example of organizations consulted in policymaking are churches. Both the Protestant and Catholic churches of Germany have official plenipotentiaries at the Bundestag. They are consulted in legislative processes and draw attention to grievances in various fields of politics, such as social, labor, asylum, and family policies (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, n.d.). Social welfare CSOs like Caritas and Diakonie perform similar functions but do not have official offices in the Bundestag. Additionally, these organizations often make suggestions for new laws or amendments to existing laws. However, these are merely suggestions, and the Bundestag and the federal government are not obliged to consider them. Similar to citizens, organizations have the opportunity to start a petition. If it reaches 50,000 signatures, the Bundestag must discuss it (Deutscher Bundestag, n.d.).
Criticism or dissatisfaction with having too little influence in Berlin or too little participation in the political process seems rare among social welfare CSOs.
The free welfare organizations are funded mainly through social insurances and governmental grants. However, they are independent associations; therefore, the government is not entitled to moderate disputes between major CSOs (Schmid, n.d.). The six free welfare head organizations come together in the Federal Working Group of Free Welfare Care (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege,).
Citations:
Bundesministerium für Finanzen. n.d. “Gesetze und Gesetzesvorhaben.” https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Web/DE/Service/Gesetze_Gesetzesvorhaben/Gesetze_Gesetzgebungsvorhaben.html
Bundesregierung. 2019. “Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Christoph Meyer, Christian Dürr, Renata Alt, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion der FDP, Drucksache 19/7912.” https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/084/1908448.pdf
Bundesregierung. 2020. “Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Otto Fricke, Christian Dürr, Grigorios Aggelidis, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion der FDP, Drucksache 19/17329.” https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/177/1917764.pdf.
Deutscher Bundestag. n.d. “Öffentliche Petitionen, Mitzeichnung und Quorum.” https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/epet/service.$$$.rubrik.oeffentlichePetition.html
Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland. n.d. “Kirchendiplomatin” der EKD. https://www.ekd.de/Bevollmaechtigter-der-EKD-14070.htm
Hummel, S., Pfirter, L., and Strachwitz, R. G. 2022. Zur Lage und den Rahmenbedingungen der Zivilgesellschaft in Deutschland: ein Bericht. Berlin: Maecenata Institut für Philanthropie und Zivilgesellschaft. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-76997-7
RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland. 2023. “Ärger über die Ampel: Verbände wehren sich gegen Turbogesetze.” https://www.rnd.de/wirtschaft/kritik-an-der-ampelregierung-verbaende-wehren-sich-gegen-turbo-gesetze-4LC5PYFG6NDBZGUS4NXDEZTY6Q.html
Schmid, J. n.d. “Wohlfahrtsverbände.” Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202214/wohlfahrtsverbaende/
https://www.bagfw.de/
After the publication of a draft law, organizations such as chambers, churches, and civil society organizations (CSOs) are free to comment on it before it is discussed in the Bundestag, the German parliament. They thus have the opportunity to shape discussions about upcoming laws, both in public and within the Bundestag. Sometimes, organizations are specifically invited by the responsible ministry to comment on a draft law. These comments are made public on the website of the ministry responsible for the draft law (Bundesministerium für Finanzen, n.d.).
The current government has shortened the official period for commenting on draft laws many times recently. This has left associations and experts with too little time to fully understand and react to proposed legislation. This practice has been heavily criticized by some organizations (RedationsNetzwerk Deutschland, 2023).
CSOs are sometimes consulted by the Bundestag or certain ministries. While this has historically been limited, there has recently been an increase in consultation opportunities for CSOs. The involvement of social welfare CSOs in decision-making and the development of draft laws varies greatly among different ministries. These organizations mainly use lobbying to gain political influence. Certain recognized associations have the Right of Association (Verbandsklagerecht) to take legal action on behalf of the public (Hummel et al., 2022: 3, 71). Apart from that, social welfare CSOs do not participate in the policymaking process, and there are no serious discussions to extend their role.
Free welfare work in Germany is primarily organized under six main organizations, such as the Red Cross, Caritas, and Diakonie. These social welfare CSOs perform numerous social tasks, caring for sick or disabled people, the elderly, and youth. Additionally, they operate many hospitals and residential homes for the elderly and disabled (Bundesregierung, 2020). Consequently, they assist the government in caring for the most vulnerable in society, which makes them politically powerful and influential. Without them, the German welfare state would collapse.
The six free welfare head organizations participate in various advisory councils in federal ministries, particularly in the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (Bundesregierung, 2019).
Another example of organizations consulted in policymaking are churches. Both the Protestant and Catholic churches of Germany have official plenipotentiaries at the Bundestag. They are consulted in legislative processes and draw attention to grievances in various fields of politics, such as social, labor, asylum, and family policies (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, n.d.). Social welfare CSOs like Caritas and Diakonie perform similar functions but do not have official offices in the Bundestag. Additionally, these organizations often make suggestions for new laws or amendments to existing laws. However, these are merely suggestions, and the Bundestag and the federal government are not obliged to consider them. Similar to citizens, organizations have the opportunity to start a petition. If it reaches 50,000 signatures, the Bundestag must discuss it (Deutscher Bundestag, n.d.).
Criticism or dissatisfaction with having too little influence in Berlin or too little participation in the political process seems rare among social welfare CSOs.
The free welfare organizations are funded mainly through social insurances and governmental grants. However, they are independent associations; therefore, the government is not entitled to moderate disputes between major CSOs (Schmid, n.d.). The six free welfare head organizations come together in the Federal Working Group of Free Welfare Care (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege,).
Citations:
Bundesministerium für Finanzen. n.d. “Gesetze und Gesetzesvorhaben.” https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Web/DE/Service/Gesetze_Gesetzesvorhaben/Gesetze_Gesetzgebungsvorhaben.html
Bundesregierung. 2019. “Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Christoph Meyer, Christian Dürr, Renata Alt, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion der FDP, Drucksache 19/7912.” https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/084/1908448.pdf
Bundesregierung. 2020. “Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Otto Fricke, Christian Dürr, Grigorios Aggelidis, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion der FDP, Drucksache 19/17329.” https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/177/1917764.pdf.
Deutscher Bundestag. n.d. “Öffentliche Petitionen, Mitzeichnung und Quorum.” https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/epet/service.$$$.rubrik.oeffentlichePetition.html
Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland. n.d. “Kirchendiplomatin” der EKD. https://www.ekd.de/Bevollmaechtigter-der-EKD-14070.htm
Hummel, S., Pfirter, L., and Strachwitz, R. G. 2022. Zur Lage und den Rahmenbedingungen der Zivilgesellschaft in Deutschland: ein Bericht. Berlin: Maecenata Institut für Philanthropie und Zivilgesellschaft. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-76997-7
RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland. 2023. “Ärger über die Ampel: Verbände wehren sich gegen Turbogesetze.” https://www.rnd.de/wirtschaft/kritik-an-der-ampelregierung-verbaende-wehren-sich-gegen-turbo-gesetze-4LC5PYFG6NDBZGUS4NXDEZTY6Q.html
Schmid, J. n.d. “Wohlfahrtsverbände.” Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202214/wohlfahrtsverbaende/
https://www.bagfw.de/
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading environmental CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
Environmental CSOs are highly respected and trusted in German society, making them well-suited to raise awareness about environmental issues and inform the public about environmental protection issues. The federal government supports environmental CSOs, such as BUND, NABU, and DNR, in their efforts and projects. These associations collaborate with the government and public administration to implement projects related to nature and the environment (Bundesregierung, 2023).
The federal government and the Bundestag, the German parliament, can consult environmental CSOs. The involvement of CSOs in the decision-making and development of draft laws varies greatly among the different federal ministries. CSOs primarily use lobbying to gain political influence. Recognized associations have the Right of Association (Verbandsklagerecht) to take legal action on behalf of the public, particularly in cases related to environmental protection, nature conservation, and animal welfare (Hummel et al., 2022: 3, 71). Any organization can comment on recent draft laws before they are discussed in the Bundestag, allowing them to shape the discussion about environmental laws both publicly and in parliament (Bundesministerium der Justiz, 2024).
Environmental CSOs contribute to the development and enhancement of the national sustainability strategy (Bundesregierung, 2023). Like German citizens, they can start a petition. If a petition reaches 50,000 signatures, the Bundestag is obliged to discuss it (Deutscher Bundestag, n.d.). Apart from these avenues, environmental CSOs do not participate directly in the policymaking process, and there are no serious discussions underway to extend their role.
There are no regular, official meetings between environmental organizations and government officials. While certain ministers and sometimes even the chancellor often meet with trade unions and business organizations, this does not seem to be the case with environmental CSOs. However, the Expert Council on Climate Issues (Expertenrat für Klimafragen, ERK), founded in 2020, consists of five experts in innovation and climate. Its main task is to monitor German carbon emissions and highlight any overshooting of sector-specific emission goals. The Bundestag and the federal government can request special reports from the ERK on climate topics, in addition to a mandatory report on carbon emissions and climate goals every two years (Expertenrat für Klimafragen, n.d.).
Environmental CSOs frequently criticize the federal government’s plans and actions and sometimes file lawsuits against the government. For example, in November 2023, the Bund für Natur- und Umweltschutz (BUND) and the Deutsche Umwelthilfe filed a suit against a governmental program of immediate action. The government had to develop this action plan due to overshooting carbon emissions in the building and transportation sectors. The court ruled in favor of the environmental organizations, stating that the program lacked short-term policies to immediately address the excess emissions (Energiezukunft, 2023). This is not the only case of an environmental CSO or a group of such organizations filing a suit against the federal government.
Major environmental CSOs are independent associations, and the federal government is not entitled to moderate disputes within or between them.
Citations:
Bundesregierung. 2023. “Die Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, Ein Kompass für die Zukunft.” https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/nachhaltigkeitspolitik/deutsche-nachhaltigkeitsstrategie-318846
Hummel, S., Pfirter, L., and Strachwitz, R. G. 2022. Zur Lage und den Rahmenbedingungen der Zivilgesellschaft in Deutschland: Ein Bericht. Berlin: Maecenata Institut für Philanthropie und Zivilgesellschaft. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-76997-7
Bundesministerium der Justiz. 2024. “Bundesregierung und Bundesministerien im Gesetzgebungsverfahren.” https://www.bmj.de/DE/rechtsstaat_kompakt/entstehung_gesetz/regierung_ministerien/regierung_ministerien_node.html
Deutscher Bundestag. n.d. “Öffentliche Petitionen, Mitzeichnung und Quorum.” https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/epet/service.$$$.rubrik.oeffentlichePetition.html
Expertenrat für Klimafragen. n.d. “Expertenrat für Klimafragen.” https://www.expertenrat-klima.de/ueber-uns/
Energiezukunft. 2023. “Klimaschutzprogramm der Bundesregierung ungenügend.” https://www.energiezukunft.eu/politik/klimaschutzprogramm-der-bundesregierung-ungenuegend/
The federal government and the Bundestag, the German parliament, can consult environmental CSOs. The involvement of CSOs in the decision-making and development of draft laws varies greatly among the different federal ministries. CSOs primarily use lobbying to gain political influence. Recognized associations have the Right of Association (Verbandsklagerecht) to take legal action on behalf of the public, particularly in cases related to environmental protection, nature conservation, and animal welfare (Hummel et al., 2022: 3, 71). Any organization can comment on recent draft laws before they are discussed in the Bundestag, allowing them to shape the discussion about environmental laws both publicly and in parliament (Bundesministerium der Justiz, 2024).
Environmental CSOs contribute to the development and enhancement of the national sustainability strategy (Bundesregierung, 2023). Like German citizens, they can start a petition. If a petition reaches 50,000 signatures, the Bundestag is obliged to discuss it (Deutscher Bundestag, n.d.). Apart from these avenues, environmental CSOs do not participate directly in the policymaking process, and there are no serious discussions underway to extend their role.
There are no regular, official meetings between environmental organizations and government officials. While certain ministers and sometimes even the chancellor often meet with trade unions and business organizations, this does not seem to be the case with environmental CSOs. However, the Expert Council on Climate Issues (Expertenrat für Klimafragen, ERK), founded in 2020, consists of five experts in innovation and climate. Its main task is to monitor German carbon emissions and highlight any overshooting of sector-specific emission goals. The Bundestag and the federal government can request special reports from the ERK on climate topics, in addition to a mandatory report on carbon emissions and climate goals every two years (Expertenrat für Klimafragen, n.d.).
Environmental CSOs frequently criticize the federal government’s plans and actions and sometimes file lawsuits against the government. For example, in November 2023, the Bund für Natur- und Umweltschutz (BUND) and the Deutsche Umwelthilfe filed a suit against a governmental program of immediate action. The government had to develop this action plan due to overshooting carbon emissions in the building and transportation sectors. The court ruled in favor of the environmental organizations, stating that the program lacked short-term policies to immediately address the excess emissions (Energiezukunft, 2023). This is not the only case of an environmental CSO or a group of such organizations filing a suit against the federal government.
Major environmental CSOs are independent associations, and the federal government is not entitled to moderate disputes within or between them.
Citations:
Bundesregierung. 2023. “Die Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, Ein Kompass für die Zukunft.” https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/nachhaltigkeitspolitik/deutsche-nachhaltigkeitsstrategie-318846
Hummel, S., Pfirter, L., and Strachwitz, R. G. 2022. Zur Lage und den Rahmenbedingungen der Zivilgesellschaft in Deutschland: Ein Bericht. Berlin: Maecenata Institut für Philanthropie und Zivilgesellschaft. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-76997-7
Bundesministerium der Justiz. 2024. “Bundesregierung und Bundesministerien im Gesetzgebungsverfahren.” https://www.bmj.de/DE/rechtsstaat_kompakt/entstehung_gesetz/regierung_ministerien/regierung_ministerien_node.html
Deutscher Bundestag. n.d. “Öffentliche Petitionen, Mitzeichnung und Quorum.” https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/epet/service.$$$.rubrik.oeffentlichePetition.html
Expertenrat für Klimafragen. n.d. “Expertenrat für Klimafragen.” https://www.expertenrat-klima.de/ueber-uns/
Energiezukunft. 2023. “Klimaschutzprogramm der Bundesregierung ungenügend.” https://www.energiezukunft.eu/politik/klimaschutzprogramm-der-bundesregierung-ungenuegend/
Graph View
To what extent does the government publish data and information that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable?
10
9
9
The government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely publishes data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens to hold the government accountable.
2
1
1
The government does not publish data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens’ capacity to hold the government accountable.
As a member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), Germany is committed to open government and is required to submit a National Action Plan (NAP) every two years. These NAPs are developed in collaboration with civil society and are expected to contain 5 to 15 independent commitments regarding open government (Federal Chancellery, 2021). In August 2023, Germany adopted its fourth NAP and a new national data strategy designed to improve data utilization to promote innovation, transformation, and competitiveness in the economy, public sector, scientific industry, and society. This initiative aims to enable a more responsible and innovative use of data, thereby fostering societal progress (Die Bundesregierung, 2023).
In 2017, Germany adopted the Federal Open Data Act, which obligates federal authorities to publish data in machine-readable and open formats (OECD, 2020). Additionally, the Second Open Data Act and the Data Use Act were adopted in 2021. Based on the Data Use Act, uniform and non-discriminatory terms of use for public sector data are to be created (Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport, 2022). Further, as of 2024, the Second Open Data Act expanded the group of authorities obligated to the Open Data principle by including the federal administration. In line with this, as of 2024, research data collected by the federal administration or on its behalf must be published as open data (Bundesministerium des Inneren und für Heimat, 2023). Lastly, by the end of 2024, the government wishes to adopt a Transparency Act (Transparenzgesetz), which is supposed to simplify cooperation within the government and improve participation opportunities for citizens.
The national metadata portal GovData was created to facilitate access to information across different regions and administrative levels. Its purpose is to provide an overview of data from federal, state, and municipal administrations, along with links to access the original data (Bundesministerium des Inneren und für Heimat, 2023). While the portal allows users to provide feedback by mail, it does not offer an interactive feedback function.
Additional portals include two by the Federal Statistical Office: one on open data for the sustainable development indicators and the Dashboard Deutschland (German Dashboard). These portals also feature communication tools but lack interactive feedback functions. However, they do offer guidelines on how to use the available data.
Overall, the World Justice Index ranks Germany’s open government with a score of 0.79 out of 1.0. Germany is ranked 13th globally and 11th regionally. The index further indicates that both Germany’s publicized laws and government data, as well as its complaint mechanisms, are good (World Justice Project, 2023).
According to the German Council of Economic Experts, “both in terms of availability and access to research data, Germany continues to lag behind other countries” (Sachverständigenrat, 2023a). In its yearly report for 2023 – 2024, the council acknowledges that some improvement initiatives have been introduced but still heavily criticizes the lack of data availability and timely provision of data (Sachverständigenrat, 2023b). While the OECD Open Useful and Re-usable Data report from 2019 scored Germany’s data accessibility at 0.27 out of 0.33 – one of the highest scores compared to other OECD countries – it also found the availability of data (0.17) and the government’s support to reuse data (0.07) to be lacking (OECD, 2020).
Data published by governments is generally barrier-free. In 2022, the government adopted key points of the Federal Accessibility Initiative, whereby information on laws and administration, for instance, is to be translated more systematically into sign language and plain language and is supposed to have subtitles more frequently (Bundeskanzleramt, 2023). Still, while the Federal Open Data Act theoretically requires this, there is no data available to make an informed comment on how accessible the data is to machines based on data formats in practice.
Citations:
Bundeskanzleramt. 2023. “Vierter Nationaler Aktionsplan 2023–2025 im Rahmen der Teilnahme an der Open Government Partnership (OGP).” https://www.open-government-deutschland.de/resource/blob/1567548/2216312/7847417a225b1837793b9525e673030e/vierter-nap-data.pdf?download=1
Bundesministerium des Inneren und für Heimat. 2023. “Open Data.” https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/moderne-verwaltung/open-government/open-data/open-data-node.html
Die Bundesregierung. 2023. “Fortschritt durch Datennutzung Strategie für mehr und bessere Daten für neue, effektive und zukunftsweisende Datennutzung.” https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Digitale-Welt/fortschritt-durch-datennutzung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=10
Federal Chancellery. 2021. “Third National Action Plan (NAP) 2021–2023 in the Framework of Germany’s Participation in the Open Government Partnership (OGP), Summary Version.” https://www.open-government-deutschland.de/resource/blob/1687030/1954570/799e145dc406326630493762ec65e37f/summary-en-3rd-national-action-plan-data.pdf?download=1
Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport. 2022. “Open Data.” https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/DG/open-data.html
OECD. 2020. “OECD Open, Useful and Re-usable Data (OURdata) Index: 2019.” https://www.oecd.org/governance/digital-government/ourdata-index-policy-paper-2020.pdf#page=44&zoom=100,84,121
Sachverständigenrat. 2023a. “Pressemitteilung, Deutschland muss in die Zukunft investieren, um seine Wachstumsschwäche zu überwinden.” https://www.sachverstaendigenrat-wirtschaft.de/jahresgutachten-2023-pressemitteilung.html
Sachverständigenrat. 2023. “Wachstumsschwäche überwinden – in Zukunft investieren, Jahresgutachten 2023/24.” https://www.sachverstaendigenrat-wirtschaft.de/fileadmin/dateiablage/gutachten/jg202324/JG202324_Kurzfassung.pdf
World Justice Project. 2023. “Germany, Open Government.” https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/2023/Germany/Open%20Government
In 2017, Germany adopted the Federal Open Data Act, which obligates federal authorities to publish data in machine-readable and open formats (OECD, 2020). Additionally, the Second Open Data Act and the Data Use Act were adopted in 2021. Based on the Data Use Act, uniform and non-discriminatory terms of use for public sector data are to be created (Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport, 2022). Further, as of 2024, the Second Open Data Act expanded the group of authorities obligated to the Open Data principle by including the federal administration. In line with this, as of 2024, research data collected by the federal administration or on its behalf must be published as open data (Bundesministerium des Inneren und für Heimat, 2023). Lastly, by the end of 2024, the government wishes to adopt a Transparency Act (Transparenzgesetz), which is supposed to simplify cooperation within the government and improve participation opportunities for citizens.
The national metadata portal GovData was created to facilitate access to information across different regions and administrative levels. Its purpose is to provide an overview of data from federal, state, and municipal administrations, along with links to access the original data (Bundesministerium des Inneren und für Heimat, 2023). While the portal allows users to provide feedback by mail, it does not offer an interactive feedback function.
Additional portals include two by the Federal Statistical Office: one on open data for the sustainable development indicators and the Dashboard Deutschland (German Dashboard). These portals also feature communication tools but lack interactive feedback functions. However, they do offer guidelines on how to use the available data.
Overall, the World Justice Index ranks Germany’s open government with a score of 0.79 out of 1.0. Germany is ranked 13th globally and 11th regionally. The index further indicates that both Germany’s publicized laws and government data, as well as its complaint mechanisms, are good (World Justice Project, 2023).
According to the German Council of Economic Experts, “both in terms of availability and access to research data, Germany continues to lag behind other countries” (Sachverständigenrat, 2023a). In its yearly report for 2023 – 2024, the council acknowledges that some improvement initiatives have been introduced but still heavily criticizes the lack of data availability and timely provision of data (Sachverständigenrat, 2023b). While the OECD Open Useful and Re-usable Data report from 2019 scored Germany’s data accessibility at 0.27 out of 0.33 – one of the highest scores compared to other OECD countries – it also found the availability of data (0.17) and the government’s support to reuse data (0.07) to be lacking (OECD, 2020).
Data published by governments is generally barrier-free. In 2022, the government adopted key points of the Federal Accessibility Initiative, whereby information on laws and administration, for instance, is to be translated more systematically into sign language and plain language and is supposed to have subtitles more frequently (Bundeskanzleramt, 2023). Still, while the Federal Open Data Act theoretically requires this, there is no data available to make an informed comment on how accessible the data is to machines based on data formats in practice.
Citations:
Bundeskanzleramt. 2023. “Vierter Nationaler Aktionsplan 2023–2025 im Rahmen der Teilnahme an der Open Government Partnership (OGP).” https://www.open-government-deutschland.de/resource/blob/1567548/2216312/7847417a225b1837793b9525e673030e/vierter-nap-data.pdf?download=1
Bundesministerium des Inneren und für Heimat. 2023. “Open Data.” https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/moderne-verwaltung/open-government/open-data/open-data-node.html
Die Bundesregierung. 2023. “Fortschritt durch Datennutzung Strategie für mehr und bessere Daten für neue, effektive und zukunftsweisende Datennutzung.” https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Digitale-Welt/fortschritt-durch-datennutzung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=10
Federal Chancellery. 2021. “Third National Action Plan (NAP) 2021–2023 in the Framework of Germany’s Participation in the Open Government Partnership (OGP), Summary Version.” https://www.open-government-deutschland.de/resource/blob/1687030/1954570/799e145dc406326630493762ec65e37f/summary-en-3rd-national-action-plan-data.pdf?download=1
Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport. 2022. “Open Data.” https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/DG/open-data.html
OECD. 2020. “OECD Open, Useful and Re-usable Data (OURdata) Index: 2019.” https://www.oecd.org/governance/digital-government/ourdata-index-policy-paper-2020.pdf#page=44&zoom=100,84,121
Sachverständigenrat. 2023a. “Pressemitteilung, Deutschland muss in die Zukunft investieren, um seine Wachstumsschwäche zu überwinden.” https://www.sachverstaendigenrat-wirtschaft.de/jahresgutachten-2023-pressemitteilung.html
Sachverständigenrat. 2023. “Wachstumsschwäche überwinden – in Zukunft investieren, Jahresgutachten 2023/24.” https://www.sachverstaendigenrat-wirtschaft.de/fileadmin/dateiablage/gutachten/jg202324/JG202324_Kurzfassung.pdf
World Justice Project. 2023. “Germany, Open Government.” https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/2023/Germany/Open%20Government