Analysis: How do you select the five industrial parks?

The government will designate five locations in Denmark where the industry will have better conditions. It sounds simple. But behind the five industrial parks lies a shift in Danish business policy. For the first time in recent history, the state will actively help shape the physical location of future production.

The initiative, which has been named 'Red Carpet', is about attracting green, energy-intensive, and technologically advanced companies to Denmark. This will be achieved through faster regulatory processing, a single point of contact, and access to green energy, logistics, and space. But it is also about something more: Where in Denmark should growth be located?

31 municipalities have submitted 29 proposals. Five will be chosen. And it will not be a technocratic sorting. It will be a weighing of geography, business history, development potential - and not least politics. Two ministries are involved: the Ministry of Business and the Ministry of Rural and Urban Development. This signals that the decision is not only about investments and exports - but also about settlement, balance, and access to jobs across the country.

The selection of the five industrial parks will become a kind of internal business policy motorway: The municipalities that are included will have a better hand when investors, officials, and large companies choose locations. This is especially true for the municipalities that are already in the shadow of the major growth centres.

It is not just a competition between 31 names on a map. It is a decision that will shape industrial Denmark for the next 10, 20, and perhaps 30 years.

Therefore, the designation raises one central question: How do you choose - when there are only five spots, and almost everyone believes they have a good case?

Some will argue for geographical distribution. Others will point to the effect of uplifting peripheral areas. Others again see it as an opportunity to focus on the areas where the pressure is already on. And in the midst of it all stands the government - with three parties and a local election on the horizon.

Here are three models for how the selection can be approached - and the fourth element that can trump them all.

Model 1: A park for each region - the conservative balance model

In this model, it is primarily about distribution - not necessarily about finding the five most ambitious bids. The logic is geographical: The state chooses one industrial park in each region, thereby creating regional balance.

The merger of the Capital Region and Region Zealand is planned. And they are merged and get two spots. Then there is one spot for Region South, Central, and North.

This model caters to both coherence and symbolism: The whole country is included, and no region is overlooked. This makes the model politically palatable - and useful as a compromise.

Kalundborg could be the strong contender in Eastern Denmark. Novo Nordisk, Ørsted, the Asnæs Power Station, and a long industrial tradition create credibility. At the same time, the area stands out as one of the few places in Denmark where green electricity, district heating, and supply are already in place on an industrial scale.

North Jutland might be harder to occupy - but Aalborg's bid around the Nordjyllandsværket is both concrete and green. Here, there is access to district heating, a port, Power-to-X, and international companies that have already shown interest.

The advantage of the model is that it gives something to the whole country. The disadvantage is that it does not necessarily reward the best - but the right place.

Model 2: The Coastal Logic - as far away from the universities as possible

Why place an industrial park close to a big city that is already well-supplied with infrastructure, research, and business? That question is implicit in the model we here call a "coastal model".

The logic is simple: If you want to strengthen production in Denmark, you should do it where the distance to growth is greatest. Not where you already have most of it.

Here, it becomes crucial whether an area can change its position, not whether it is already strong. This creates an advantage for peripheral municipalities with large available capacity, low land prices, and local political support.

Rødbyhavn on Lolland is a good example. 55 billion kroner has already been spent on infrastructure in connection with the Fehmarn Belt link. The port is ready. There are international connections, and there is political will. If the state wants to send a signal of wanting Denmark all the way around - then it is closer here than many other places.

Tønder, Brønderslev, and Vesthimmerland also profile themselves within this logic - often with low noise levels, green energy, and distance to academic institutions.

But the model also has its own risk: If you choose solely based on distance from the city, you may end up with parks where the largest players do not dare to move in. This can cause problems in the long run.

Model 3: Effect and pace - where can something happen quickly and on a large scale?

The third model is neither geographical nor political - it is technocratic. Here, the focus is on where the state can most quickly and effectively create green industrial growth with low risk.

The model focuses on four things:

1. Is the area developed and ready?

2. Is there available energy and supply?

3. Are there companies already ready to move in?

4. Are there local forces that have tried it before?

Municipalities such as Fredericia (Taulov), Odense (Lindø), Aalborg and Skive (GreenLab) have clear strengths in this model. Their areas are developed, tested and in demand. It's not about attracting - it's about making space.

Several central Jutland municipalities have expressed frustration that only five industrial parks are to be designated. If the state in practice chooses according to the technical model, there may be pressure to expand the scheme - quickly and without major political battles.

The fourth card: Politics

However, there is one model that trumps all others - and that is the municipal and national map. It is unthinkable that all five industrial parks will be placed in Social Democratic strongholds - no matter how strong the applications are.

Four or five of the most visible and aggressive applicants are led by Social Democratic mayors. However, the government also includes Venstre and the Moderates, and this will influence the distribution. Kalundborg, for example, is governed by Venstre, and this may affect the overall balance.

Therefore, it is also not unlikely that a decision will come only after the municipal election in November. 

Conclusion: A political, technical and strategic balancing act

The designation of the five industrial parks is not a technical prioritisation alone. It must balance country and city, effect and symbol, established strength and new growth.

Whether one chooses based on geography, periphery, or pace - or a combination - will be decisive for how the industrial parks are perceived: As development, as reward, or as investment.

In any case, it will be a decision with resonance - and perhaps a foretaste of what Denmark wants as an industrial nation in 2030.