Perspectives on Business and Economics.Vol41



Volume 41 2023 EXPLORATIONS OF CONTEMPORARY DENMARK Perspectives on Business and Economics THE GAY AND DOUGLAS LANE JOURNAL OF THE LEHIGH UNIVERSITY MARTINDALE CENTER STUDENT ASSOCIATES Perspectives on Business and Economics is published by the Martindale Center for the Study of Private Enterprise Rauch Business Center, 621 Taylor St., Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015 Stephen Cutcliffe, Ph.D. Editor Editorial Board Alberto J. Lamadrid L., Ph.D. Todd A. Watkins, Ph.D. Catherine M. Ridings, Ph.D. Richard N. Weisman, Ph.D. Andrew Ward, Ph.D. George P. White, Ph.D.

MARTINDALE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE Center Staff Todd A. Watkins, Ph.D. Executive Director Andrew Ward, Ph.D. Associate Director Trisha S. Alexy Program Manager Melissa M. Gallagher Administrative Coordinator J. Richard Aronson, Ph.D. (1937–2023) Founding Director Founded in 1980 thanks to a generous endowment from Elizabeth Fairchild Martindale and Harry Turner Martindale '27, the Martindale Center for the Study of Private Enterprise is an interdisciplinary resource in the Lehigh University College of Business. The Center engages students, faculty, and the business and policy communities in active inquiry, tackling questions central to understanding and fostering sustainable private enterprises and inclusive economic systems throughout the world. Martindale Center Publications Periodicals • Perspectives on Business and Economics • Martindale Discussion Paper Series • Martindale Retrospectives • Martindale Center Policy Briefs Books • I.W. Lieberman, P. DiLeo, T.A. Watkins, and A. Kanze, eds., The Future of Microfinance (Brookings, 2020) • T.A. Watkins, Introduction to Microfinance (World Scientific, 2018) • J.R. Aronson, H.L. Parmet, and R.J. Thornton, eds., Variations in Economic Analysis (Springer, 2010) • T.A. Watkins and K. Hicks, eds., Moving Beyond Storytelling: Emerging Research in Microfinance (Emerald, 2009) • I.W. Lieberman and D.J. Kopf, eds., Privatization in Transition Economies: The Ongoing Story (Elsevier, 2008) • K. Fabian, ed., Globalization: Perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe (Elsevier, 2007) • J. Laible and H.J. Barkey, eds., European Responses to Globalization: Resistance, Adaptation and Alternatives (Elsevier, 2006) • V. Munley, R. Thornton, and J.R. Aronson, eds., The Irish Economy in Transition (Elsevier, 2002) • F. Gunter and C. Callahan, eds., Colombia: An Opening Economy (JAI, 1999) • D. Greenaway and J. Whalley, eds., “Symposium on Liberalisation and Adjustment in Latin America and Eastern Europe,” in The World Economy (Blackwell Publishers, 1994) • A. King, T. Hyclak, R. Thornton, and S. McMahon, eds., North American Health Policy in the 1990s (John Wiley & Sons, 1993) • A. O’Brien and R. Thornton, eds., The Economic Consequences of American Education (JAI, 1993) • A. Cohen and F. Gunter, eds., The Colombian Economy: Issues of Trade and Development (Westview Press, 1992) • D. Greenaway, R. Hine, A. O’Brien, and R. Thornton, eds., Global Protectionism (Macmillan, 1991) • E. Schwartz and G. Vasconcellos, eds., Restructuring the Thrift Industry: What Can We Learn from the British and Canadian Models? (1989) • D. Greenaway, T. Hyclak, and R. Thornton, eds., Economic Aspects of Regional Trading Arrangements (Wheatsheaf Press, 1989) • R. Thornton, T. Hyclak, and J. Aronson, eds., Canada at the Crossroads: Essays on Canadian Political Economy (JAI, 1988) • R. Thornton and J. Aronson, eds., Forging New Relationships among Business, Labor, and Government (JAI, 1986) • R. Thornton, ed., Schumpeter, Keynes, and Marx: A Centennial Celebration (1984) • R. Thornton, A. Ott, and J.R. Aronson, eds., Reindustrialization: Implications for U.S. Industrial Policy (JAI, 1984) For information on Martindale Center publications and past issues of Perspectives, visit ii

iii Perspectives Perspectives on Business and Economics is the journal of the Martindale Student Associates Honors Program founded and run by the Martindale Center for the Study of Private Enterprise at Lehigh University. Each year, a faculty panel selects 12 of Lehigh’s finest undergraduate students to become Martindale Student Associates. Each student undertakes research focusing on an aspect of the economy and business environment of a foreign nation or state and prepares articles for publication. The country or state of focus changes each year. Denmark is taking the lead in green, sustainable living with an effort to stem the tide on climate change. In March, the Martindale Denmark cohort visited Invest in Denmark at the Consulate General of Denmark in New York and the NYC-based Danish Cleantech Hub, a public-private partnership founded by State of Green and the Confederation of Danish Industry. During the cohort’s 12-day trip to Denmark in August, they observed green technology in all aspects of life in Denmark: transportation, urban planning, agriculture, energy, architecture, and culture. Denmark even has waste-to-energy plants that burn so clean they house recreational facilities; for instance, the CopenHill plant includes a ski slope and climbing wall. And, the canals are clean enough swim in (and the students did!). Other discussions during the program of seminars and field tours with academic and industry leaders included Danish history and its relationship to global business; international partnerships; Greenland; the legal and penal system; the central bank’s role in the Danish economy; immigration; logistics; the circular economy; business structure and family foundations; labor unions and employer perspectives; youth and alcohol issues; health care; entrepreneurship and manufacturing; block chain technology; women in business; the education system; current Danish politics; tourism; and trade. The cohort continued their investigations during a visit to Washington, D.C., in October. Students met with Thomas Viskum Lytken Larsen, arctic advisor in the Foreign, Policy and Security Department of Foreign, Security & Development Policy of the Embassy of Denmark, and journalist Steffen Kretz, Danish Broadcasting Corp., to discuss the differences between the media in the US and Denmark. This journal is the culmination of the students’ 16 months of research and hard work. Special Thanks The Martindale Center acknowledges the critical role played by alumni, parents, friends, and the many experts in Denmark who gave generously of their time and expertise as advisors and speakers to help make the 2022–2023 program and Volume 41 of this journal a success. Developing a curriculum and itinerary for a country program starts with indepth conversations about the culture, current topics, and potential site visits and activities within the country. The following individuals generously offered their time to speak with the group and assisted with Danish connections: Jens Birk, North America and senior investment manager of Invest in Denmark, Consulate General of Denmark in New York; Anne-Mette Halvorson, director of career and professional development, graduate programs, Lehigh University College of Business; Steffen Hovard, CEO, NeuSpera Medical; Therese Lanfranco Hovard, community leader; Timothy White '06, chief digital and technology officer, GSK; Christian Lyhne Ibsen, associate professor, University of Copenhagen; Lehigh University Global Village alumni Morten Koefoed '09, Lasse Kreiner-Scheffmann '10, and Christopher Fabritius '05; Sidsel Høyer Knudsen, Pennsylvania School for Global Entrepreneurship '09, Lehigh University; and Julia Canepa Alhadeff Knobel '13, project manager, Novo Nordisk. Special appreciation to project manager, Michael Kristensen, Samsø Energy Academy, for arranging a daylong visit on Samsø island. In 2021, Samsø received the UN Global Climate Action Award for its community achievements of reaching 100% net annual balance of renewable energy and its work in climate leadership. Appreciation to CEO Søren Hermansen, Samsø Energy Academy, for the fascinating talk and tour of the island and its energy resources. We would be remiss to not mention a session at the famous Niels Bohr Institute that invoked awe among our students and faculty. Our group sat in the exact room that “the foundation of atomic physics and modern physics was created…inspired by Niels Bohr in the 1920s and 30s.” Sincere thanks to Kim Splittorff, associate professor of physics, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, for arranging our visit and speaking to us. We also appreciate Maria Lancia '21 and Abbhi Sekar '21 of the Argentina cohort for joining us on this trip. Because the Argentina cohort missed the opportunity for international field immersion during their 2020–2021 program due to the pandemic, Martindale has opened the trips to two Argentina alumni per year. Maria and Abbhi were fantastic additions to the trip and cohort!

iv The Martindale Student Associates thank Trisha S. Alexy for organizing the curriculum, itinerary, and topic speakers; faculty mentors Professors Lamadrid, Ridings, Ward, Watkins, Weisman, and White for guidance on research and writing; and Professor Emeritus Stephen Cutcliffe and Nancy Watkins for their editorial rigor and patience. The students also thank the faculty spouses for support and friendship throughout. On behalf of the Martindale community of students, alumni, faculty, staff, and friends, we express immense appreciation to Douglas Lane '67 and Gay Lane for their support of this journal. Finally, we honor and recognize the founder of the program, Professor J. Richard Aronson, whom we lost this year, for creating such an enduring legacy at Lehigh. We will miss him dearly. Todd A. Watkins, Ph.D Stephen Cutcliffe, Ph.D Executive Director, Editor Martindale Center The Martindale Center thanks the following individuals: Per Bøch Anderson Julie Juel Anderson María Muñiz Auken Elizabeth Dempsey Becker Steffen Brandenhoff Cynthia Brown Sofie Dyhr Crump Troels Kromand Danielsen Jakob Johan Demant Julie Grønlund Niels-Erik Hansen Steen Hestbek Kristin Holme Mia Hørup Trine Birgitte Hougaard Peter Huntley Michael Nobel Hviid Mathilde Gade Jæger Christina Tønner Jensen Christian Joas Kristian Bernt Karlson Louise Klinge Kristian Kreiner Kasper Larsen Sofie Lindskov Hansen Søren Madsen Ole Mikkelsen Peter Møllgaard Henning Morgen Frederikke Viltoft Mygind Oliver Kofod Nørgård Cathrine Østerberg Mads Engle Pedersen Christian Rønne Anders Rosbo Carla Sands Henrik Skou Kasper Sobfeldt Jahn Maria Steensgaard Nishu Tayel Marianne Ladekarl Thygesen Michelle H. Williams Victoria Lindhardt Zorzi The Martindale Center thanks the following Martindale alumni mentor/journal article readers: Aaron K. Adams '20 Megan E. Colville '12 Jake I. Cooper '20 Ian M. Davis '18 Daniel DePietro '13 Alicia Drummey '85 Calvin W. Floyd '20 Jessica A., Franolic '22 Peter F. Harter '90 Logan A. Hodges '16 David Dashifen Kees '02 '04G Maria M. Lancia '21 Nick Lynch '05 '07G Josephine Histand Martin '95G David S. Morency '19 Tina Peloquin '95 Lisa Phillips '90 Augustine M. Ripa '04 Abbhi Sekar '21 Tyler Sloan '16 Sue Nee Tan '09 David Thorn '00 '02G Andrew M. Tye '13 Helen C. Tynes '22 Lindsay I. Wilson '18 Cathy E. Withers '14 '15G The Martindale Center thanks the following organizations: A.P. Møller – Mærsk APM Terminals Nordics/Port of Aarhus Aarhus University Agro Food Park Carlsberg Group City of Aarhus, Strategic Urban Development Confederation of Danish Employers Danish Chamber of Commerce Danmarks Nationalbank Dora Nordic Food Nation Historic Bethlehem Museums & Sites Kronborg Castle Kvantify Louisiana Museum of Modern Art Medicoindustrien Museum Kolding, Christiansfeld World Heritage Site Netto-Bådene Novo Holdings Østerberg Ice cream Permanent Mission of Denmark to the UN in New York Rønne Architects MAA State of Green Tivoli Gardens University of Southern Denmark US Embassy, Copenhagen Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde VisitDenmark

v THE MARTINDALE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE RECOGNIZES AND THANKS OUR MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS FOR THEIR GENEROUS SUPPORT J. Richard Aronson '87PG '15GP (deceased) and Judith L. Aronson '80G '87PG '15GP Alan S. Brodherson '86 Robert M. Cahill '84 '23P '23P and Mary Beth Cahill '23P '23P Brian P. Cunningham '09 '10 and Danielle M. Spar '10 Fairchild-Martindale Foundation Fred S. Fraenkel '71 '03P and Andrea Fraenkel '03P Faith R. Glazier '87 '19P and Robert A. Weisstuch '85 '19P Jay H. Golding '67 and Susan Golding Stephen F. Goldmann '66 Donald M. Gruhn '49 and Judy Gruhn Leo Guthart Barry C. Harris '70 and Sandra Harris Peter F. Harter '90 David Heidecorn '78 '11P and Deborah S. Heidecorn '78 '11P Frederick H. Jamieson '74 and Jane P. Jamieson '75 Dirk Junge '71 and Judith Junge Mark S. Kaufman '53 (deceased) and Carole Kaufmann Edward R. Klein '67 '68G '01P and Rosalyn F. Klein '01P Michael D. Krauss '83 and Dara Lynn Krauss Jeffrey A. Laborsky '99 and Melissa Laborsky '99 Douglas Lane '67 '90P and Gay Lane '90P Norman J. Merksamer '52 '84P (deceased) and Geraldine Merksamer '84P Roger S. Penske '59 '82P and Kathryn Penske Rina S. Pertusi '85 '14P and William G. Pertusi '83 '14P Rodolfo Segovia '89P '91P and Silvia Segovia '89P '91P Sarat Sethi '92 and Kanika Priya Sethi Steven R. Shoemate '85 Sidney J. Silver '57 '59G '81P '93P '15GP '18GP and Margaret Silver '81P '93P '15GP '18GP James B. Swenson '59 '15GP '17GP and Roberta H. Swenson '15GP '17GP Maria E. Taber '93 and Mark D. Taber Jeffrey Tarnoff '69 '00P (deceased) and Diane W. Tarnoff '00P Ferdinand Thun '56 (deceased) and Elizabeth Thun Todd A. Watkins '15P '18P and Nancy B. Watkins '15P '18P Kenneth R. Woodcock '65 and Dorothy Woodcock Allen M. Yurko '73 and Gayle Yurko

vi THE MARTINDALE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE THANKS THE FOLLOWING DONORS FOR THEIR VALUED SUPPORT (FY2019–FY2023) Luis A. Arcentales '98 '00G Richard W. Barsness and Dorothea L. Barsness Devon J. Battaglia '01 '03 and Irene L. Battaglia '04 Elizabeth H. Beatty '84 '16P Raymond Bell '71G and Elizabeth R. Bell '74G Elizabeth L. Benko '01 and Hrvoje Benko '01 Jason J. Benkoski '98 James R. Berger '76 '07P Thomas A. Berglund '82 and Rosemarie Fiorilli '83 Sharon P. Bernstein '77 and Joseph Bernstein Whitney L. Bernstein '15 '16G Christopher J. Berzin '10 Kenneth D. Blanchette '10 Patricia Brown and Michael Brown Margaret C. Buell '88 '93G '17P '19P and Stephen G. Buell '70 '71G '77G '17P '19P Thomas F. Burke, Jr. '93 and Sharon Burke John M. Burton '15P and Karen M. Burton '15P Gordon Campbell and Janet Gordon Taylor C. Carroll '17 Laura G. Chan '17 Erin L. Collette '15 '16G Megan E. Colville '12 Anais Concepcion '10 William K. Croft '95 and Christine M. Croft '95 Christopher L. Croteau '92 and Lena Croteau Christopher J. Cunningham '03 and Lori A. Shuler-Cunningham '03 '04G Billie M. Davis '02 '03G Ian M. Davis '18 Michelle M. Davis '86 and Scott Davis George S. Diamond '72G '77G and Roberta Diamond Nicole R. Dobson '96 Joleen R. Doverspike '99 '01G (deceased) and Joshua C. Doverspike '99 Alix E. Eggerding '04 Mohamed S. El-Aasser and Nora A. El-Aasser Andrea J. Englander '05 Joshua J. Feldman '93 and Wendy C. Goldstein-Feldman Andrew C. Fiala '92 and Ehren Weidenkeller Kenneth P. Fischl '71 '01P and Marsha Fischl '01P Justin L. Frankel '96 Jenifer Gilio Steven M. Glassman '04 '05G Ann Goldberg Benjamin O. Golden '94 Mary Rita Goodman '90G and Allan B. Goodman '60 Daniel A. Grande '11 and Jordan McKinley Milton H. Grannatt III '68 '69G '72G '75G and Patricia S. Grannatt '72G Nicholas J. Greybush '11 Shaan Gurnani '16 John H. Hardenbergh '11P '17P and Diane Glass '11P '17P Brooke I. Heidecorn Keith Heidecorn '11 and Stephanie Braunthal Marie E. Helmold '81 Mary J. Hill (deceased) Rosemary M. Hilley '78G '03P and John L. Hilley '03P Elizabeth Hittinger '71P '75P '78P '97GP '02GP (deceased) Logan A. Hodges '16 Katherine Hodsdon '11 Robert M. Holcombe '58 '69G '95P and Elizabeth K. Holcombe '67G '95P Jeffrey T. Horvath '92 Thomas J. Hyclak and Jean M. Hyclak '98G Christopher M. Jewell '03 Christine M. Joachim '96 Andrew J. John '06 '07G and Soo Hooi Oh '06 '07 Jonathan M. Kamenear '07 and Heather Kamenear Larry M. Kantor Carolyn Kaplan '02 '03G and Rudyard D. Kaplan '02 Irving Kaplan Jonathan Klein and Ann Klein Ira W. Krauss '67 and Mary R. Krauss Margaret M. Krawiec and Steven Krawiec Judith F. Lappen '81G Andrew R. Lauden '93 and Trisha W. Lauden '93 Kelly Lear Nordby '90 Cynthia L. Learn '87 Ira W. Lieberman '64 '94P and Phyllis Lieberman '94P Grace H. Lin '19 Pam Lott '89 and Ron D. Ticho '85 '89G Nicholas A. Lynch '05 '07G

Toni A. Marraccini '09 Beverly and Gayne Marriner Betsy M. Martindale '90 and Wight Martindale III '85 Veronica D. McKinny '18 Deborah Miller and Gary A. Miller Linda and Michael R. Miller Vincent G. Munley '74 '02P '04P '05P and Ann C. Munley '91G '02P '04P '05P Sarah W. Nelson '00 and Todd Nelson Alexander A. Niewiarowski '15 Nicholas Noel III '74 and Karen S. Noel Karen A. O’Donnell VanderGoot '99 and Matt R. VanderGoot Raymond Ojserkis '91 Christina Pak '15 Marc C. Palmer '10 Erika R. Papaccioli '03 Steven Paraboschi and Marci Paraboschi Elaine Phillips Catherine Y. Preysner '16 Stacey L. Rantala '93 and Brian S. Birtell '93 Gretchen A. Rice '11G Karen J. Richard '93 Shauna G. Richman '83 Martin Richter and Carol Richter Catherine M. Ridings '18P '21P Dolores Rockman and Harold Rockman Donald O. Rockwell, Jr. '65G '68G and Elke H. Rockwell Daniel E. Rosenthal '92 '21P and Michelle H. Rosenthal '92 '21P Lissa Rotundo James C. Rule, Jr. '11 and Michelle Spicer Kristin E. Sargent '02 Kristel Schimmoller Elizabeth L. Schnabolk '08 and Stuart D. Schnabolk '09 Sandra Schonberger and Jack Schonberger Judy Schooling Sheila C. Schottland '05 and David Schottland Curtis S. Schuelein '81 Bruce M. Serchuk '89 and Anita Soucy David Shaffer and Susan Shaffer Allison A. Shearman '07 Jonathan P. Skinner '20P and Karen K. Skinner '20P Richard S. Slayton '89G Tyler A. Sloan '15 David A. Slomsky '95 Paul E. Smith '61 '63 '93P and Carol A. Smith '93P J. James Spinner '73 and Karen Spinner Olga M. Stewart '05 '06 J. Nicholas Strasser '01 and Rosanne Facchini Karen L. Stuckey '75 '10P and Henry W. Seduski, Jr. '10P Robin Superick Jasmine E. Surti '12G Connie D. Svoboda '99 Elly Swartz Sue Nee Tan '09 Tyler A. Tate '04 '05G William J. Tronoski '92 and Anastasia M. Tronoski Andrew M. Tye '13 Beth E. Vallen '00 and Kenneth J. Vallen Jon P. Van Order '94 Jade B. Van Streepen '15 Susan G. Vengrove and Marc A. Vengrove M. Jeremy Walsh '08 Jeffrey S. Wantman '00 and Sara Wantman Katherine L. Warren '02 and Michael S. Warren '02 Edmond A. Watters III '61 '66G '74G Ashley E. Weber-Pickard '00 Richard N. Weisman '00P and Melody Weisman '81G '00P Caroline F. Weisstuch '19 Cynthia E. Welton '94 and Griffith J. Welton '88 Nancy Werlin Lorraine S. Wiedorn '84G '13P '17P and Paul G. Wiedorn '83 '85G '13P '17P Glenn C. Wightman '91G and Lauren Wightman Beth M. Wilson '18P Lindsay I. Wilson '18 Jamie L. Wine '92 and David M. Simonds Cathy E. Withers '14 '15G Eric C. Wolfe '92 and Jessica Wolfe Sandra Wruble and Norman Wruble Stephen V. Zanias '05 '07G vii LEHIGH UNIVERSITY AFFILIATIONS KEY: 'Yr: Undergraduate degree year 'G: Graduate degree year 'P: Child’s undergraduate degree year 'PG: Child’s graduate degree year 'GP: Grandchild’s degree year

EXPLORATIONS OF CONTEMPORARY DENMARK Volume 41 2023 Introduction Jens Birk.......................................................................................................................................................x Denmark, Greenland, and the Arctic Emma N. Chiusano ......................................................................................................................................1 As a constituent of the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland provides Denmark with a claim to the Arctic. Independence has been long debated in Greenland, posing a continuing risk for Denmark. With geopolitical strife intensifying in the Arctic, Denmark must invest in its relationship with Greenland or risk losing its status as an Arctic nation. This article examines the relationship between Denmark and Greenland, specifically as it pertains to the Arctic. Ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Danish health-care system Laura X. Duffany..........................................................................................................................................8 Denmark has one of the most comprehensive and well-funded public health-care systems in the world; however, internal communication issues, shortages of health-care professionals, and an emerging private sector threaten the long-term sustainability of the system. This article analyzes the current organizational structure, economic model, and patient demographics of the Danish universal health-care system and proposes a new, integrative model that efficiently prioritizes the quality of patient care. Danish mortgage debt and systemic risk from rising interest rates Ben Wainfan...............................................................................................................................................17 Denmark’s stable and efficient mortgage system, combined with over a decade of low interest rates and accommodative tax policies, has enabled Danish borrowers to accumulate Europe’s highest debt-toincome ratio. With interest rates and debt servicing costs rising, Danish borrowers, particularly the most leveraged ones, face financial challenges that may affect the economy and society for years to come. This article explores the implications of rising interest rates and offers policy solutions to protect the most vulnerable from overindebtedness. Benefits and pitfalls of Denmark’s high-trust society Raihan Alam............................................................................................................................................... 24 Denmark exhibits some of the highest levels of trust in the world. Many attribute the country’s social and economic successes to its citizens’ strong trust in its institutions and in other people. However, the socioeconomic costs of such high levels of trust have been less explored. This article reviews both the benefits and costs of Denmark’s high levels of trust and discusses ways the country can make the best use of this crucial resource. Workforce education in Denmark Bryce Erdman.............................................................................................................................................32 Denmark is known for its well-funded, tertiary education system that allows students to obtain most degree levels without much debt. However, due to a variety of factors, there is a shortage of students who pursue long-term degrees. This article presents an overview of the workforce education system in Denmark, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the system, and proposes recommendations to address these issues. The Danish equality paradox: Women in Danish corporate management Caroline E. Palmer.....................................................................................................................................40 Compared to the other Nordic countries, Denmark is lagging in its representation of women in management positions in the private sector. Corporate boards and executive positions do not meet the EU guideline of 40% women. Danish culture, lack of quotas, and parental leave legislation, among other factors, contribute to this disparity. While changing a country’s culture is a long-term process, quota legislation would spur immediate progress and increase the number of women in these upper-level business roles. viii

Denmark’s path toward carbon-neutral agriculture Asgar Bin Ali.............................................................................................................................................. 46 Denmark’s agricultural sector plays a significant role in greenhouse gas emissions, but effective strategies can be used to achieve carbon neutrality. This article examines four proposals to decrease agricultural greenhouse gas emissions: transitioning to plant-based food production, harnessing the benefits of the digital revolution in agriculture, using biogas from waste to lessen reliance on petroleum products, and implementing a carbon tax on agricultural production and land use. Denmark’s energy strategy and the viability of bioenergy Viraj Sethi...................................................................................................................................................53 Denmark has ambitious climate goals of reducing carbon emissions by 70% from 1990 levels by 2030 and approaching carbon neutrality by 2050. The nation’s energy and electricity demands will rely heavily on the production of renewable energy sources, including wind energy and bioenergy. The sustainability of large-scale biomass combustion has been questioned. This article explains the overall Danish energy strategy and explores the viability of bioenergy as a transitory form of electricity generation for Denmark. The role of foundation-owned firms in corporate Denmark Junmoke James............................................................................................................................................61 Denmark’s business landscape is unique, wherein foundations own most of the market value of its companies. The corporate structure of foundation-owned firms allows for flexibility in thinking that accounts for high levels of environmental sustainability, innovation, and philanthropy. This article examines three of Denmark’s foundation-owned firms—Novo Nordisk, Maersk, and the Carlsberg Group, analyzing how their structure generates increased focus on social responsibility. It extrapolates lessons that can be drawn from foundation-owned firms and applied to conventional corporations. Slipping through the welfare cracks: Denmark’s homeless Alexis H. Soulias........................................................................................................................................68 Denmark ranks within the top three happiest countries in the world due to the country’s high level of equality and extensive welfare system. Despite this overall ranking and coverage for free health care and education, there is a startling homeless population within Denmark. This article discusses how four main demographics (substance abusers, mentally ill, youth, and migrants) slip through the safety net and then poses opportunities for Denmark’s government to refocus policies to catch these people. Immigrants in Denmark: Past, present, and future Bonor Ayambem......................................................................................................................................... 76 Denmark has a reputation for being a liberal and tolerant country with regard to its treatment of certain marginalized groups. However, a close study of social and political documentation reveals that this treatment has not historically applied to immigrants and people of color, in particular black and brown Muslim immigrants. This article performs such a study and investigates claims of Denmark’s egalitarianism through an analysis of its history and economy. Mitigation of sea level rise in Denmark Marina Mendez Legarra.............................................................................................................................85 Great efforts have been made by Danes to become world leaders in sustainability. Unfortunately, they still must address challenges brought forth by climate change. As a country almost completely surrounded by water, Denmark is vulnerable to any increase in sea level. It is essential that a proactive approach be taken to implement protective measures. This article explores the risks that communities face as well as possible solutions to mitigate flooding. ix

Introduction I was approached by the Lehigh University Martindale Center for the Study of Private Enterprise during the late phase of the pandemic, toward the end of 2021. At the time, planning a trip to Denmark for university students in 2022 sounded complicated due to continuing COVID lockdowns and travel restrictions. Getting together in person was still difficult. We were finally able to schedule an event at the Danish Consulate General in New York City in March 2022, and it was such a pleasure and honor to meet an extremely engaged and talented group of students who already knew so much about Denmark and the Danish society, economy, and culture. I had brought along to the presentation one of my interns who— along with a group of other Danish students—spent six months at the Consulate, taking part in various activities across all departments. We did a presentation on Denmark but what really moved us was the wonderful dialogue that followed. I always frown when my fellow Danes start a presentation by stating, “Denmark is a small country.” Of course, Denmark is a small country, but hopefully that is not its most important characteristic. Here at the Consulate, we work on building partnerships with all parts of American society: trade, investments, culture, education, health care, and government. Danes tend to be humble and quiet, but we consider ourselves open to the world and interested in learning from other cultures. Denmark has a strong focus on sustainability across the whole political spectrum and is considered a front-runner. The Danish healthcare sector is extremely important for the Danish government and is receiving additional funding in order to continue to grow and develop solutions that will benefit Danish patients as well as health-care systems worldwide. I was honored that the Lehigh University Martindale students chose Denmark and impressed that they spent so much time not just traveling there but also studying our country in detail and writing some truly remarkable essays about various aspects of Danish society. It is my belief that the only way to become better is to learn from each other, and Denmark definitely has a lot to learn from the US and from students who take a critical view and come up with new solutions for improvements. When reading the young scholars’ work, it became clear to me that the students had chosen subjects that are key to ensuring that Denmark remains a progressive society that is at the forefront of sustainability, climate change, health care, education, diversity, and inclusivity, to name but a few. I was particularly interested in reading about trust and its role in Danish society. I truly hope that the students and faculty who have taken the time to visit and to research and write about Denmark will continue to take an interest in our country and maybe in the future can help build partnerships between the US and Denmark. Jens Birk Deputy Director, Invest in Denmark Consulate General of Denmark in New York x

1 MARTINDALE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE Denmark, Greenland, and the Arctic Emma N. Chiusano As a constituent of the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland provides Denmark with a claim to the Arctic. Independence has been long debated in Greenland, posing a continuing risk for Denmark. With geopolitical strife intensifying in the Arctic, Denmark must invest in its relationship with Greenland or risk losing its status as an Arctic nation. This article examines the relationship between Denmark and Greenland, specifically as it pertains to the Arctic. Introduction Because Greenland is a country within the Kingdom of Denmark, certain aspects of the Greenlandic government are controlled by the sovereign nation of Denmark, namely foreign, defense, and security policies. Greenland’s lack of total autonomy is not well received by its citizenry, which resents Denmark using Greenland as their sole claim to the Arctic. A call for independence has existed in Greenland for decades, and having little say in Arctic affairs amplifies the movement, leaving Denmark in a quandary: trying to delegate as much power as necessary without giving up total control. It is essential to examine this complex relationship in the context of the Arctic, as a “race for the Arctic” has existed for decades but recently intensified. The current remilitarization of the Arctic has sparked competition between Arctic nations and ignited the interest of non-Arctic countries, such as China, that desire power in the region. The Arctic is also increasingly studied because of climate change leading to melting Arctic ice, opening new shipping routes and creating access to unmined materials. As security councils are formed, claims to Arctic land and waters are disputed, and valuable resources are discovered, Denmark must be an active player in the Arctic and gain as much control as possible. The independence movement in Greenland, paired with collaborations with outside powers such as the United States and China, leaves Denmark in a precarious position. The former nation is important because Denmark considers the US an invaluable strategic ally and bases policy decisions around the relationship. The latter is important, since it can potentially increase the risk of Greenlandic independence. Danish self-interest points to the necessity of formalizing an acceptable collaboration with Greenland, thereby ensuring the country remains within the Kingdom’s formal orbit. Failure to do so means Denmark would lose its claim to the Arctic and any accompanying relevance on the world stage. The Denmark–Greenland relationship The relationship between Denmark and Greenland can be characterized by a lack of trust. Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) is the world’s largest noncontinental island, boasting an area of 836,300 mi2. The first settlers to arrive in Greenland were Inuits from what is now known as Canada. They utilized the narrow straight formed by the freezing of Baffin Bay to arrive in present-day Thule around 2500 bce. Between then and the ninth century ce, six subsequent migrations of Inuits arrived. Norse settlers, led by Erik the Red, arrived in 982 ce. The Greenlandic Inuits lived in peace until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when expeditions from England and Norway arrived in Greenland. Among the most prominent of these was in 1721, when Hans Egede, a missionary from the joint Kingdom of Denmark–Norway, arrived in what is now known as Nuuk and successfully converted Inuits to Christianity (Visit Greenland., n.d.). In 1729, Greenland formally fell under Danish rule. The two coexisted off the world stage until 1941, when the US established air and navy bases in Greenland after the start of World War II. Denmark fell under Nazi occupation during that time and temporarily lost contact with Greenland (Lambert, 2022). After World War II, meaningful political and economic changes occurred, which shaped the Denmark–Greenland relationship into what it is today. In 1953, Greenland became a province of Denmark rather than a colony, and in 1966, the Bank of Greenland was founded. In 1973, Denmark and Greenland joined the European Union (EU). However, after Greenland was granted home rule in 1979, it quickly

2 PERSPECTIVES ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS | VOL 41 | 2023 voted to leave the EU. In 1985, Greenland established its flag. Greenland was given more autonomy through the Self-Government Act Referendum, which established Kalaallisut as the official language (Lambert, 2022). Even though Greenland has experienced advances in its home rule, Denmark retains exclusive sovereign control over foreign policy, defense policy, and security policy (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d.). The lack of authority in these areas contributes to most Greenlanders favoring independence. To date, no decision has been reached about when or how sovereignty should be obtained, mainly because Greenland receives a grant of 3.9Bkr ($614M) annually (International Trade Administration, 2022), a large sum to overcome before Greenlandic politicians can move toward independence, as it is commonly accepted that economic and political independence must go hand-in-hand (Grydehøj, 2020). Today, Greenland’s most important financial sector is fishing, which cannot sustain as many jobs as in the past due to climate change and sustainability concerns. Consequently, the government of Greenland is trying to augment the economy in other sectors, such as the island’s mineral resources and tourism. Since 2000, foreign overnight visitors have increased by 50%, and visiting cruise line passengers have grown by 150%. The government hopes to attract foreign investments to these sectors to boost GDP (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d.). Similarly, mineral resources found in northern Greenlandic mines, such as lead and zinc, have the potential for use in green technologies (Frederiksen, 2019). The history of Denmark in Greenland has been long and complex; however, maintaining the relationship will prove vital as Denmark attempts to leverage Greenland in the race for the Arctic. The race for the Arctic and its strategic relevance The race for the Arctic is a phrase coined in the late 2000s to describe the geopolitical strife caused by untapped resources, climate change, unsettled borders, and power interests in the Arctic regions of the world (International Trade Administration, 2022). There has been peaceful development in the Arctic thus far, yet numerous factors point toward a quiet militarization of the Arctic. One of the most prominent contributing factors to this is the Arctic paradox, which states that the more rapidly humans burn fossil fuels, the sooner the population will have access to new oil, gas, and mineral resources, a result of global warming accelerating the melting of Arctic ice, which would open new oil and gas reserves (Hilde, 2013). In the Arctic, the search for these resources has already begun. The US estimates that the Arctic contains up to 25% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas. This projection is backed by Russia, which has announced $41B worth of tax incentives for oil field development over 30 years and approved a $300B government incentive program for Arctic infrastructure (Rumer et al., 2021). As the ice melts, the Arctic map will be redrawn. New transport routes are opening, and the potential for ownership of new energy resources in the Arctic poses national security issues. For example, the northwest passage in Canada has yet to be navigable year-round. However, with climate change, the season in which the route can be used for shipping is expanding and is expected to be navigable throughout the summer in upcoming decades. These new routes have cut shipping distance by 40% in some cases, as calculated in Russia’s Northern Sea by the shipping company Mærsk, which could lower fuel costs and benefit the environment (Frederiksen, 2019). This expansion has caused debate within Canada regarding the government’s ability to maintain surveillance in the Arctic and ensure that only authorized vessels cross the passage (Hilde, 2013). Other ways in which the Arctic Sea ice melting can increase business in the region are through fiber cables, data centers, fishing, and extraction of raw materials. Fiber cable installation across the Arctic Ocean has already been agreed on by the Finnish company Cinia and the Russian company MegaFon. Installing data centers can create new jobs in the Arctic and help data storage become more sustainable. In terms of the fishing industry, as the ice melts, more territories will open. At present, unregulated fishing has been prevented in the Arctic, but the potential remains. Finally, once ice thaws, previously inaccessible land and sea will be available to mine valuable minerals (Frederiksen, 2019). The benefits of an open Arctic are promising, although the potential for tension exists. For example, the Kingdom of Denmark has already experienced security issues in the Arctic, namely an altercation with Canada over claims to Hans Island, located in the Nares Strait between Canada and Greenland. This issue has since been resolved, but the conflict was rampant in the late 2000s, with both nations planting flags on the island and defending their claims with warships. Canada and Denmark claimed that “timesaving sea lanes in the Arctic could transform the shipping industry the way the Suez Canal did in the 19th century” (Palosaari, 2012). National security flareups are especially concerning because the Arctic Council—one of the largest cooperating bodies

3 MARTINDALE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE in the Arctic, composed of the Arctic Five (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the US) as well as Finland, Iceland, and Sweden—does not have authority on security threats (Arctic Portal, n.d.). The race for the Arctic in Greenland Two-thirds of Greenland is above the Arctic Circle, reaching as close as 500 miles to the North Pole (International Trade Administration, 2022). This makes it a significant area regarding Arctic affairs. To discuss the race for the Arctic in Greenland, it is essential to appreciate the relationships between Greenland and key Arctic players, such as Denmark, the US, and China, all desirous of access for logistical and resource reasons. Danish involvement Denmark plays an intriguing role in the Arctic, in that it is deemed an Arctic state only through its sovereignty over Greenland (Jacobsen, 2020). However, Denmark rarely entrusts Greenland with fair representation in exercising political influence on Arctic policies. Through Greenland, Denmark has been able to stake a claim to more than 550,000 mi2 of landmass and, through the continental shelf project, has extended its claim to include additional territory in the Arctic Ocean. This extension claim is possible through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 76, which states that coastal Arctic states can extend their continental shelves, thereby gaining more control in the region beyond 200 nautical miles if they can document bathymetric proof of the base of their continental shelf to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, et al., 2015). The Kingdom of Denmark has obtained a seabed stone from the slopes of the Lomonosov Ridge, which crosses the polar ocean from Greenland to Russia, that it claims originated from Greenland. Scientists have partially confirmed this, but more samples are needed to prove it with certainty. However, if more testing confirms Denmark’s territorial extension claims, it can claim the right to exploit resources in the region (Brix, 2017). Denmark is the only entity involved in all international councils regarding the Arctic, which include the following: the Arctic Council, the Ilulissat Declaration, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, NATO, the UN, and the EU (F. Viltoft Mygind, remarks to Martindale Center, October 24, 2022). The Ilulissat Declaration was a first-of-its-kind political statement, signed in Ilulissat, Greenland, in 2008, by the Arctic Five. The declaration signified that the Arctic Five would act peacefully and responsibly in the Arctic, settling claims through negotiation and cooperation. Denmark’s Arctic strategy from 2011 to 2020 reflected the sentiments of this declaration by working toward “a peaceful, secure and safe Arctic…in close cooperation with [its] international partners” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, et al., 2015). Clearly, respecting the Arctic and its stakeholders is important to the Kingdom and all Arctic governing bodies. The Kingdom’s newest foreign and security policy, released in January 2022, offers further insight into exactly how this will be accomplished. Notably, the Arctic is the fourth priority of this strategy behind a strengthened focus on migration, promoting exports and economic diplomacy, and strengthening European policy, thereby demonstrating the gravity with which the Kingdom regards this issue. One way in which Denmark will increase its presence in the Arctic is through the Arctic Capacity Package. This 1.5Bkr ($219M) commitment will increase the presence of the Danish Armed Forces in the Arctic and North Atlantic via long-range drones, radar, and satellite monitoring. It will also include civil society support through rescue operations, fishery inspections, research, and environmental and climate monitoring (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2022). As with the 2011–2020 Arctic strategy, the 2022 foreign and security policy will promote low tension in the Arctic, peaceful and sustainable development, and cooperation within the Kingdom (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2022). Moreover, the Arctic Capacity Package will focus on increasing collaboration within the Danish Realm and contributing to NATO’s overall Arctic initiative. The foreign and security policy also names the US as “an unrivaled and crucial partner for Denmark [and its] most important security policy ally” (Olsvig & Pram Gad, 2021). Thus, the Kingdom will aim to stand alongside the US in handling Arctic and worldwide tensions. Denmark emphasizes cooperation within its foreign policy, but not all Kingdom members believe it is fully realized. Shortly after the Arctic Capacity Package was released, parliamentarians from Greenland and the Faroe Islands (the third territory within the Danish Kingdom) claimed that neither nation was “adequately involved in the deliberations on the package.” Moreover, Greenland in foreign and security affairs, even within the Arctic, has been characterized as responsive—accepting initiatives by Denmark and the US—rather than directive (Olsvig & Pram Gad, 2021). In 2016, Vittus Qujaukitsoq, Greenland’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs, crit-

4 PERSPECTIVES ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS | VOL 41 | 2023 icized Denmark’s foreign and security affairs report for not considering Greenlandic interests (Jacobsen, 2020). Outside of policy considerations, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are not always used to their fullest potential on the world stage. Initially, the two nations played a prominent role in foreign affairs. The former Premier of Greenland, Lars-Emil Johansen, signed the Ottawa Declaration on behalf of the Kingdom of Denmark; and, until 2011, Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands were represented equally at the Arctic Council. Subsequently, this shared representation changed when Greenland and the Faroe Islands lost their seats at the table. Although this decision was subsequently reversed, their respective flags were replaced with one large, symbolic Danish flag. Greenland can participate with Denmark in informal meetings; however, as mentioned previously, Greenlandic politicians are often overlooked. Contrastingly, Greenland manages the coordination and executive role of the Sustainable Development Working Group on behalf of the Kingdom of Denmark. Moreover, Greenland can participate in the Arctic Council through the Inuit Circumpolar Council; however, this is outside the delegation of Denmark (Jacobsen, 2020). The role of Denmark in Greenland is clearly complicated and cries out for resolution. The relationship can further be analyzed through the relationship between Denmark, Greenland, and the US. American involvement The US involvement in Greenland is defined first and foremost by its security interests. The US first established a presence in Greenland in 1941 with the development of Thule Air Base, the largest air force base in the Arctic region, creating a security relationship between the US and Denmark. The US expanded this presence in the 1950s with the construction of the Distant Early Warning Line and the Ballistic Early Warning System. These systems are vital to the US presence in the Arctic—they act as a missile defense system, a satellite operations hub, and part of the US Air Force network. The activity of these systems peaked at the height of the Cold War, but their strategic relevance is once again being discussed amidst the race for the Arctic. During the Cold War, a US plane with four nuclear bombs on board accidentally crashed, which contaminated a fjord forcing a number of Greenlanders to resettle. Denmark’s “nuclear-free zone” policy further complicated this situation. To ensure that this did not happen again, the Itilleq Declaration of 2003 put into writing that Greenland would be involved in relevant foreign policy decisions by requiring the Danish government to consider the perspectives of Greenlandic politicians. The declaration was a precondition for the negotiations of Thule Air Base as a missile defense shield (Takahashi et al., 2019), laying the groundwork for a three-way symbiotic relationship between the US, Denmark, and Greenland. A renewed interest in the relationship between the US and Greenland was highlighted in 2019, when President Trump broached the idea of purchasing Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark. The White House’s increased interest in the military importance of Greenland prompted this offer. A year prior to this announcement, a declaration of intent was signed by John Rood, the US Secretary of Defense, in which the US stated its intention to pursue investments in airport infrastructure in Greenland for the purpose of military and civilian purposes such that the US can increase military response and surveillance (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Iceland, 2020). The relationship between the US, Denmark, and Greenland was reaffirmed in the US National Strategy for the Arctic Region 2022–2032, which aims to deepen relationships with allies and partners, including Denmark and Greenland. As previously noted, Denmark often bases foreign policy decisions on those made by the US, so understanding American positions can help inform decisions made by Denmark in the Arctic. The US approach comprises security, climate change and environmental protection, sustainable and economic development, and international cooperation and governance (Fleener, 2013). Security is the first pillar of the US Arctic plan since there are no security protections within the Arctic Council. Chinese involvement As is the case with the US, there exists a triangular relationship between Denmark, Greenland, and China. This relationship has existed since the 1950s, when Denmark and China formed a diplomatic relationship. That relationship fell under scrutiny in 2013, when China’s interest in the Arctic peaked, and Greenland’s interest in China did the same. In 2014, Kai Holst Andersen, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Greenland, declared Greenland’s interest in investments from China (Sørensen, 2017). Although China is not an Arctic state, the country is interested in the region. For years, China has claimed to be a “near-Arctic state” and has been pushing to move away from letting Arctic states determine legislation in the region and toward internationalizing Arctic affairs, which would make the country an influential stakeholder in the Arctic.