In-depth report on the results of the European Climate Pact open public consultation : final report.
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Climate Action
Subjects: climate change policy, environmental education, exchange of information, green public procurement, local government, non-governmental organisation, public authorities, public consultation, reduction of gas emissions, sustainable development, trade union, tropical wood, type of business

In-depth report on the results 
of the European Climate Pact 
open public consultation 

Final report

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Climate Policy 
CLIMA.A - International, Mainstreaming and Policy Coordination 

CLIMA.A3 – Adaptation 

Contact: Katarzyna BALUCKA-DEBSKA 

E-mail:  Katarzyna.BALUCKA@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contract details 

European Commission – DG Climate Action, C.1 

Service contract to support open public consultations for the preparation of a plan to increase the EU 

2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction target and for the preparation of the launch and 

implementation of the European Climate Pact, as part of the European Green Deal (Ref. Ares (2019) 

7797718) 

Service request no. 7 under framework contract ENV.F.1./FRA/2019/0001 

Work carried out by 

In association with 

Authors 

Jeroen Oomkens, Hans Bolscher, Andreea Beznea, Jaz Hereford (Trinomics) 

David Birchby, Blanca Fernandez, Patrick Troy, Micaela Zabala (Ricardo) 

Oras Tynkkynen, Kati Berninger (Tyrsky Consulting) 

Date 

Rotterdam, 02 October 2020 

Disclaimer 

The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and they cannot in any 

circumstances be regarded as the official position of the Commission or its services. The Commission 

does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any 

person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of 

the information contained therein. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 

Executive summary ................................................................................... 7 

1 

Introduction .......................................................................................17 

2  Analytical approach..............................................................................18 

2.1 

Target group, timing, and structure of the Open Public Consultation .............. 18 
2.1.1  Target group .............................................................................................. 18 
2.1.2  Timing ...................................................................................................... 18 
2.1.3  Structure .................................................................................................. 18 

2.2 

Method of analysis ............................................................................. 19 
2.2.1  Analysis of closed questions ............................................................................ 19 
2.2.2  Analysis of open-ended responses ..................................................................... 20 
2.2.3  Analysis of position papers and attachments ......................................................... 21 
Identification of coordinated responses ............................................................... 23 
2.2.4 

3  Results of the Open Public Consultation .....................................................26 

3.1 

Respondent profile ............................................................................ 26 
3.1.1  Stakeholder coverage [Q2, Q3, Q8] and demographic characteristics [Q12, Q13, Q14] ........ 26 
3.1.2  Language coverage [Q1] and country of origin [Q10] ............................................... 29 
3.1.3  Sectors of activity [Q11]................................................................................. 31 

3.2 

Talking about climate change and environmental crisis: awareness and 
information   .................................................................................................... 34 
3.2.1  Useful information under the Climate Pact [Q16] ................................................... 34 
3.2.2  Preferred sources of information [Q17] ............................................................... 37 
3.2.3  Useful channels and tools to raise awareness [Q18] ................................................. 41 
Interesting events [Q19] ................................................................................. 45 
3.2.4 

3.3 

Triggering action: pledges and initiatives ................................................. 46 
3.3.1  Preparedness to pledge [Q20] .......................................................................... 46 
3.3.2  Advantages of making a pledge [Q21] ................................................................. 50 
3.3.3  Themes [Q22] ............................................................................................. 51 
3.3.4  Areas of participation [Q23] ............................................................................ 55 

3.4 

Working together: platforms ................................................................ 56 
3.4.1  What could be useful under the platform [Q24] ..................................................... 56 
3.4.2  What could improve collaboration between individuals or organisations [Q25] ................. 58 
3.4.3  Best ways of promoting and supporting existing initiatives [Q26] ................................. 60 

3.5 

Ideas and suggestions for further development ......................................... 62 

3.5.1  How the Climate Pact can best complement or scale up existing initiatives and add value 

[Q27] 

 .............................................................................................................. 62 
3.5.2  Most important characteristics of the Climate Pact [Q28] ......................................... 65 
3.5.3 
Initiatives that would potentially be interested in joining the Climate Pact [Q29] ............. 66 
3.5.4  Type of ‘ambassadors’ [Q30] and interest in becoming ‘ambassadors’ [Q31] ................... 68 
3.5.5  Encouragement and development of joint green procurement [Q32] ............................ 73 
3.5.6  Participation and facilitation of joint green procurement by local authorities [Q33] .......... 74 
3.5.7  Approaches to monitoring, reporting, and evaluating the implementation of pledges [Q34, 

Q35] 

 .............................................................................................................. 76 

3 

 
 
 
3.5.8  Suggestions for additional functions of the Climate Pact [Q36] ................................... 80 

3.6 

Actions and interest in the Climate Pact .................................................. 84 

3.6.1  Self-reported climate friendliness [Q37] and preparedness to become more climate-friendly 

[Q38] 

 .............................................................................................................. 84 

3.6.2  What would help individuals and organisations take more climate action or become more 
climate-friendly [Q39] ................................................................................................... 88 
Interest in taking part in the Climate Pact [Q40] .................................................... 92 
Impact of activities under the Climate Pact [Q41] .................................................. 93 

3.6.3 
3.6.4 

4  Results of the stakeholder workshops (webinars) to support the Open Public 
Consultation ...........................................................................................97 

4.1 

4.2 

Results of the first webinar .................................................................. 97 

Results of the second webinar ............................................................ 105 

5  Summary and analysis of Open Public Consultation attachments and other relevant 
position papers ...................................................................................... 117 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

Description of papers ....................................................................... 118 

Regional (country-based) analysis ........................................................ 118 

Key outcomes ................................................................................ 119 

5.3.1.1  What information would best help you achieve the goals of the Climate Pact? And which 
channels for this information? ......................................................................................... 119 
5.3.2  How important is this information in achieving Climate Pact goals referred to in   5.3.1? ... 119 
5.3.3  How could the Pact encourage concrete pledges and commitments for climate action? ..... 120 
5.3.4  How can the Pact give everyone a voice and space to design new climate actions? .......... 120 
5.3.5  How can the Pact specifically support zero-energy buildings, green mobility, and tree-

planting? 

 ............................................................................................................. 120 

5.3.6  How can the Climate Pact promote and support new and existing initiatives and 

pledges/action  implementation? ..................................................................................... 120 
5.3.7  Which existing relevant initiatives should the Pact build on and link to? ....................... 121 
5.3.8  How can the Pact promote collaboration and exchange? .......................................... 121 
5.3.9  Which relevant approaches will have the most significant impact? .............................. 121 

5.4 

Stakeholder-level analysis ................................................................. 121 
5.4.1  Academic/research institution ........................................................................ 122 
5.4.2  Business association ..................................................................................... 123 
5.4.3  Company/business organisation ....................................................................... 124 
5.4.4  EU citizen ................................................................................................. 124 
5.4.5  Environmental organisation ............................................................................ 125 
5.4.6  Non-governmental organisation (NGO) ............................................................... 125 
5.4.7  Public authority.......................................................................................... 126 
5.4.8  Trade union .............................................................................................. 127 
5.4.9  Other ...................................................................................................... 127 

5.5 

Summary of analysis ........................................................................ 128 

Annex A: Open Public Consultation questionnaire transcript ............................. 132 

Annex B: List of Open Public Consultation attachments and position papers .......... 145 

Annex B.1 Source of papers and prioritisation ..................................................... 145 

4 

 
 
Annex B.2 Stakeholders representation ............................................................. 145 

Annex B.3 Regional representation ................................................................... 145 

Annex C: Online Papers search methodology ................................................. 147 

Annex D: Position paper summaries ............................................................ 148 

Annex D.1 Papers that have been analysed ......................................................... 148 

Annex D.2 Papers dismissed from analysis .......................................................... 169 

Annex E: Question 35 list of existing reporting systems shared by participants ....... 173 

5 

 
 
6 

 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

The European Commission carried out an open public consultation on the European Climate Pact (the Pact) from 

March 4th to June 17th, 2020 (15 weeks in total). The inputs from this public consultation are relevant to shape 

the Pact ahead of its launch in the last quarter of 2020 and to inform the Communication on the Pact1.  

This  report  provides  an  analysis  of  the  responses  received  to  the  public  consultation.  This  initiative  aims  to 

engage all European citizens, communities and organisations in all sectors of society and economy in designing 

new climate action, sharing information, launching grassroots activities and showcasing solutions that others can 

follow.2 The public consultation asked citizens and organisations questions on the three pillars of the Pact, i.e. 

talking about climate change, triggering action, and working together, as well as ideas and suggestions for further 

development and actions and interest in the Pact. 

The public consultation sheds light on the following insights: 

• 

• 

Respondents  called  for  more  climate  education.  This  was  deemed  as  one  of  the  most  impactful 

activities  that  the  Pact  could  support  or  contribute  to.  Education  in  schools  and  scientists  and  think 

tanks were also considered the most important channels or sources of information. Scientists and experts 

were nominated as the most suitable ‘ambassadors’ of the Pact. 

Knowledge sharing surfaced as an essential theme in the public consultation. Respondents noted that 

they would like to know more about what actions other individuals or organisations are taking, as well 

as practical tips, and information on carbon, ecological and consumption footprints. This is foreseen by 

engaging in meetings and connecting with more like-minded people or relevant (local) platforms and 

initiatives through, e.g. workshops, participatory sessions, and networking events. Knowledge sharing 

and  enhanced  collaboration  can  also  be  achieved  through  trainings  on  climate  change  problems  and 

collaborative solutions, matchmaking, and other opportunities for contacts and exchange. 

• 

Support  (material  or  other)  offered  by  the  Pact  or  other  related  EU  initiatives  was  recognized  as  a 

critical  enabler  of  climate  action.  Respondents  highlighted  that  they  would  want  information  on 

concrete actions that they could take, as individuals or as organisations. The expected type of support 

includes e.g. advice on actions that can be taken; advice on engaging with reliable information; support 

to cope with the effects of climate change and reducing emissions measures; material support (funding, 

capacity-building); and non-material support (e.g. visibility, recognition). Respondents appeared highly 

motivated to attend informative events to learn about climate action and to exchange information. The 

Pact could facilitate such events and offer support for collaboration initiatives and local initiatives.  

• 

For areas of action, the Pact would add most value in promoting a more circular economy, climate-

friendly mobility and energy generation from renewable sources. Over the medium term, the Pact 

can  also  challenge  carbon-intensive  food  production  and  consumption  and  integrate  biodiversity 

issues into climate action. The latter are reflected in the themes that respondents are willing to address 

through their pledges. Local and sustainably produced food and biodiversity are supported by around 

half of potential pledges. Food choices being particularly important to the youth. 

An overview of respondents 

1 For more information on the consultation, please visit https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/12219-European-Climate-Pact/public-consultation. 
2 For more information on the European Climate Pact, please visit https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-
action/pact_en.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The public consultation received a total of 3,510 contributions. The largest share of type of respondents were 

EU  citizens  (80%),  followed  by  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  (5%),  companies  and  business 

organisations  (4%),  and  public  authorities  (3%)  (Figure  0-1).  Amongst  those  responding  in  their  professional 

capacity (19%), around two-thirds of respondents represented micro (1-9 employees) or large (+250 employees) 

organisations. Consequently, the organisations responding to this consultation represented a minimum of 59,222 

employees.  

Figure 0-1 Overview of respondent types 

In  terms  of  demographic  characteristics,  there  was  a  gender  balance  among  respondents.  There  were 

respondents  from  all  ages  (from  minors  to  beyond  80  years  old),  although  younger  adults  were  relatively 

overrepresented, with almost one-third of all respondents (32%) being between the ages of 18 and 30 (as a share 

of respondents having provided their age). Furthermore, respondents had all levels of education (from primary 

school to PhD), although highly educated respondents were also overrepresented (67% of respondents having 

reported their level of education had a university degree).  

A very large majority of  the total amount of  respondents (85%) stated that they  are either “quite” or “very” 

climate-friendly meaning that the Pact has yet to appeal to ‘non-converted’ communities. 

“Education/training” and “research/innovation” belong to the most represented sectors of activity, with 23% 

and 21% of respondents selecting those sectors, respectively.3,4  

Furthermore, the large majority of respondents (96%) were of EU origin. There were respondents from all the 

27  EU  countries.  Amongst  all  respondents,  a  significant  share  came  from  Germany  (39%), followed  by  France 

(14%), Belgium (12%), Italy (7%), and Spain (6%) (Figure 0-2). Almost 80% of respondents originated from these 

countries, collectively.  

3 These percentages represent the frequency of each selected sector of activity because respondents could select multiple 
sectors as either individuals or as organisations. 
4 Certain “other” sectors were incorrectly selected, so they have been reclassified. More information on their reclassification 
is provided in Chapter 3. 

8 

0%, 1 0%, 12 1%, 37 1%, 42 2%, 56 2%, 70 2%, 84 3%, 110 4%, 124 5%, 174 80%, 2 800 Consumer organisationTrade unionOtherNon-EU citizenEnvironmental organisationBusiness associationAcademic/research institutionPublic authorityCompany/business organisationNon-governmental organisation (NGO)EU citizen[Q2] "I am giving my contribution as" (n=3510) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 0-2 Countries of origin of respondents 

Note: This figure was created using Excel, with a tool powered by Bing (© DSAT Editor, GeoNames). 

Talking about climate change and environmental crises 

“Climate  change  and  environmental  policies  and  action”  rank  as  most  useful  information  topics  under  the 

European Climate Pact.  with (57%),  closely followed by “concrete actions that I or my organisation can take to 

become more climate-friendly” (51%), climate and environmental risks (47-39%, depending on the specific topic), 

available support (18-32%, depending on the specific topic), how to engage with reliable information (30%), and 

others’ actions (29%) (Figure 0-3).  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 0-3 Useful information topics 

Scientists/think tanks score the highest as preferred sources of information (90%),  followed by “EU institutions 

and  international  organisations”  (54%),  “universities/schools”  (44%),  civil  society  organisations  (42%), 

national/regional/local authorities (32-38%), and “Pact ambassadors” (28%) (Figure 0-4).  

10 

6%, 210 18%, 623 20%, 701 29%, 1 015 30%, 1 037 32%, 1 115 39%, 1 356 42%, 1 452 47%, 1 624 51%, 1 770 57%, 2 004  - 500 1 000 1 500 2 000OtherSupport available to cope with the effects of climate changeSupport available to cope with the effects of mitigation measures (e.g.closures of coal mines, increases in fuel/energy prices)What others are doing (e.g. individual actions, collective initiatives)How to identify false or misleading information and how to best engagewith sources that spread reliable information, e.g. via online socialmedia or in my social network.Advice and support that are available to help me or my organisation totake actionClimate change and environmental crises and their impactsThe costs of (in-)action and its social impactsInformation on climate risks (e.g. consequences on the food chain, water availability, health…) and ways and means to prepare for thoseConcrete actions that I or my organisation can take to become moreclimate-friendlyClimate change and environmental policies and action[Q16] "What information would be useful for you or your organisation under the European Climate Pact?" (n=3491) 
 
 
 
Figure 0-4 Preferred sources of information 

Social  media  are  the  most  important  channels  and  tools  for  spreading  information  (60%),  followed  by 

“educational  programmes  at  schools”  (58%),  “traditional  media”  (49%),  websites  (34%),  conversations  with 

citizens (32%) and local or national/regional events (32% and 22%, respectively) (Figure 0-5).5  

5 In these questions, respondents could select up to four choices.  

11 

4%, 1286%, 2098%, 2718%, 28728%, 98932%, 1 13538%, 1 32942%, 1 47244%, 1 53354%, 1 88690%, 3 13201 0002 0003 000OtherCelebrities/Influencers/Family and friends, people IknowYouth organisationsBusinesses“Climate Pact” ambassadors in various sections of the societyRegional and/or Local authoritiesNational authoritiesCivil society organisations/climate activistsUniversities/SchoolsEU institutions/international organisationsScientists/experts/think tanks[Q17] "What would be your preferred sources for information about climate change and how you can take action?" (n=3494) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 0-5 Useful channels and tools for awareness raising 

Moreover, “workshops on specific topics or initiatives” belong to the face-to-face events considered the most 

interesting to attend (77%), followed by “participatory sessions, think tank events” (59%), “networking events” 

(53%), local meetings (42%) and large events (34%).6 

Triggering action 

A huge majority of respondents (91%) expressed some sort of interest in making a commitment under the Pact. 

More in detail, more than half of respondents stated that they would be prepared to pledge concrete climate 

action under the  European Climate Pact and that they would be interested in building on commitments already 

made (Figure 0-6).7 38% of respondents indicated that they would be ready to pledge subject to some conditions 

(i.e., obtaining some sort of support).  

6 This question also allowed respondents to select up to four answers. 
7 Multiple answers were possible in this question. 

12 

3%, 110 11%, 380 14%, 478 15%, 508 15%, 532 17%, 590 19%, 651 22%, 783 32%, 1 124 32%, 1 131 34%, 1 186 49%, 1 715 58%, 2 020 60%, 2 079  - 500 1 000 1 500 2 000OtherGames/serious games/interactive platforms/appsCreative events/filmsAdvertisingLocal helpdesks for consultancy and practical adviceEU-level eventsGrassroots initiativesNational, regional eventsLocal eventsConversations with citizens on specific policy topics (citizens’ dialogues/assemblies)WebsitesTraditional media (e.g. newspapers, television, radio)Educational programmes at schoolsSocial media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Youtube)[Q18] "What channels and tools would you find useful for awareness raising under the European Climate Pact?" (n=3492) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 0-6 Preparedness to pledge 

Regarding the main advantages of making a pledge, “lead by example” scores the highest (63%), followed by 

“motivation by having a goal” (48%), “being part of a community, sharing experience” (44%), “accountability” 

(31%) and “recognition” (24%).  

The main themes that respondents could see their pledge addressing were “circular economy” (66%), “mobility” 

(56%),  “knowledge  and  skills”  (54%),  “food”  (54%),  “transformation/behavioural  change”  (52%),  “renewable 

energy” (51%), “green areas” (47%), and “energy efficiency” (47%).  

Furthermore,  in  the  presence  of  targeted  support  (e.g.  awareness-raising,  advice,  and  possibly  funding), 

“planting  trees/green  urban  areas”  (66%),“low-carbon  mobility  in  cities”  (64%),  and  “energy  efficiency  in 

buildings” (40%) were the areas that respondents were willing to participate in most.8 

Working together 

As useful elements under the platform, most respondents selected “listing of relevant events” in their country 

or their field of work (71%),  “online events” (67%), “connecting with peers” (58%), and “other relevant platforms 

and initiatives” (55%) (Figure 0-7).9  

8 Multiple answers were possible in these questions. 
9 Multiple answers were possible in this question. 

13 

1%, 32 2%, 55 2%, 75 5%, 178 6%, 199 11%, 383 13%, 447 17%, 602 22%, 784 53%, 1 844 No, I am not interested in engaging in climate action.No, I am not interested in contributing to the Pact.Yes, but I would need …OtherDo not know.Yes, but I would need help to gather wider support andacceptance.Yes, but I would need financial support.Yes, I am already considering making a climate actioncommitment and would be interested in engaging in this…Yes, but I would need information or non-financialsupport to take action (e.g. guidance, good practices).Yes, I have already made a climate action commitmentand would be interested in building on it[Q20] "Would you or your organisation be prepared to pledge concrete climate action under the European Climate Pact?" (n=3510) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 0-7 Useful elements under the platform 

To  improve  collaboration  between  individuals  or  organisations,  most  respondents  opted  for  “support  (e.g. 

funding, capacity-building)” (62%), “trainings” (54%), “networking opportunities” (48%), “matchmaking” (43%), 

and “harmonised reporting and monitoring” (33%).%)10  

Furthermore, the best ways to promote and support existing initiatives and to link them more closely to the 

European Green Deal were to provide material and non-material support (76% and 48%, respectively), create a 

more  favourable  (cultural  or  political)  environment  (66%),  provide  specific  spaces  for  consultation  and  co-

deliberation (54%), as well as networking (vertical and horizontal) (50%).%)11 

Ideas and suggestions for further development 

The  Pact  can  best  complement  or  scale  up  existing  initiatives  and  add  value  by    providing  financial 

incentives/support  (16%),  promoting  climate-friendly  mobility  (13%),  research  and  development  (13%)  and 

education and training (11%), and coordinating and promoting existing initiatives (13%).  

“Ambition”  (62%),  “transparency”  (62%),  “participation”  (52%),  and  “inclusiveness”  (46%  emerge  as  the  most 

important characteristics of the Pact)12.  

Provided  initiatives  that  could  join  the  Pact  included  Scientists  for  Future  (30%)  Fridays  for  Future  (26%), 

Parents for Future (13%) and Extinction Rebellion (7%).  

The type of ‘ambassadors’ that could contribute most to the Pact were “scientists, experts” (74%);13 and, more 

than one-third of respondents stated that they would be interested in becoming an ‘ambassador’ for the Pact. 

Some  actions  that  potential  Pact  ambassadors  wish  to  tackle  are:  behavioural  change  and  initiatives  for 

consumers,  circular  economy  initiatives  (and  the  ‘throw-away’  culture),  environmental  education,  water 

management, rural development, and ‘greening’ the industry.  

Almost two thirds of respondents stated that they would like joint green procurement to be further encouraged 

and  developed  in  the  EU  and  that  local  authorities  should  further  participate  in  and  facilitate  joint  green 

procurement. 

10 Up to four choices were possible in this question. 
11 Up to four choices were possible in this question. 
12 Multiple choices were possible in this question. 
13 Up to four choices were possible in this question. 

14 

18%, 619 55%, 1 914 58%, 2 032 67%, 2 352 71%, 2 509 OtherLinks to other relevant platforms and initiativesLinks to connect with like-minded people andorganisationsOnline events (e.g. webstreamed events,webinars, Massive Open Online Courses(MOOCs), trainings)Listing of relevant events (in my country/fieldof work)[Q24] "What would you find useful under this platform?" (n=3510) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the most suitable monitoring, reporting and evaluation system, over half of respondents answered “adapt 

it  to  participants’  emissions/pollution  level”  (54%),  followed  with  around  one  quarter  by  “use  existing 

independent  systems”  (29%),  “deep  reporting  and  verification  methods”  (25%)  or  “light  methods”  (24%). 

References of existing systems were provided. 

The  most  frequently  provided  suggestions  for  additional  functions  that  the  Pact  should  provide  included 

education/training (19%), challenging carbon-intensive food production and consumption (13%), and promoting 

renewable energy generation (11%). Suggestions for additional functions for the Pact included education and/or 

training  on  climate  related  issues  (16%),  challenge  carbon  intensive  food  production/consumption  (13%), 

promote renewable energy generation (11%), and disseminate information through knowledge sharing (10%).  

Actions and interest in the European Climate Pact 

A  large  majority  of  respondents  (83%)  would  be 

Figure 0-8 Interest in taking part in the Pact 
Figure 0-9 Interest in taking part in the Pact 

interested  in  taking  part  in  the  Pact:  65%  as 

“individuals” 

and 

18% 

as 

“organisations”. 

Approximately 85% of respondents stated that they 

are  either  “quite”  or  “very”  climate-friendly.  A 

similar  share  would  have  “some”  or  “many” 

opportunities to become more climate-friendly.  

On what would help respondents take more action, 

72%  answered  “more  appropriate  infrastructures 

facilitating 

climate-friendly  behaviours”,  67% 

answered “concrete support (including financial) or 

incentives”,  and  “stricter  laws,  regulation  and 

enforcement” (62%).14  

Finally, the activities that were considered to have the most impact under the Pact were practical (material) 

support to initiatives (59%), practical tips and tools  (53%), and learning material (48%).15  

Results of the two stakeholders workshops (webinars) 

The objective of the Webinars, similar to that of the OPC, was offer opportunities for learning, exchange and 

co-creation of the Climate Pact. A portion of the webinars was dedicated to introducing participants to the 

Climate Pact initiative and answer their questions. The other half of the webinar was dedicated to listening to 

participants, collecting their feedback, suggestions, and other ideas. In both webinars’ discussion was 

encouraged among participants in small breakout rooms, and with EU representatives during the Q&A.   

The first webinar for the open public consultation on the European Climate Pact took place on the 15th of 

June, 2020. The webinar was led and facilitated by the European Commission (department for Climate Action) 

and  lasted  two  hours.  168  participants  registered  for  the  webinar,  representing  companies,  NGOs,  public 

authorities, business associations, academic and research institutions, citizens, environmental organisations, and 

lobbying associations. The webinar included a plenary presentation from the European Commission, two breakout 

sessions, two interactive plenary summaries, and a final plenary Q&A and summary. At the closure of the webinar, 

14 Up to four choices were possible in this question. 
15 Up to four choices were possible in this question. 

15 

No, 141 , 4%Do not know, 479 , 13%Yes, as an organisation, 620 , 18%Yes, as an individual citizen, 2 270 , 65%[Q40] "Would you be interested in taking part in the European Climate Pact?" (n=748)No, 141 , 4%Do not know, 479 , 13%Yes, as an organisation, 620 , 18%Yes, as an individual citizen, 2 270 , 65%[Q40] "Would you be interested in taking part in the European Climate Pact?" (n=748) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
participants were asked to complete a poll on how enthusiastic they were feeling about the Pact, and a large 

share (42%) responded with a 10/10. The poll scored 8.6 overall.  

The second webinar for the open public consultation on the European Climate Pact took place on the 14th of 

July, 2020. Similar to the first webinar, it was led and facilitated by the European Commission (department for 

Climate Action) and lasted two hours. All respondents to the consultation were invited to participate. In terms 

of  geographical  representation,  participants  (n=317)  came  from  all  over  the  world.  Germany  was  most 

represented, followed by Belgium, France, Italy and Spain. The majority of participants were active in the sectors 

education/training (20%), advocacy (11%), conservation (8%) and public administration and defence (7%).  

Much  like  the  first  webinar,  a  series  of  breakout  rooms  were  created,  and  participants  were  automatically 

assigned to a breakout room with the intention to have one facilitator in each room with six to eight participants. 

The breakout rooms were organised around 9 thematic topics: 1) Charter of the Pact, 2) Storyline of the Pact, 3) 

#EUClimatePact Ambassadors, 4) Individual pledges, 5) Organisational pledges, 6) Knowledge sharing, 7) Support 

offered by the Pact, 8) Climate education, 9) Other potential actions within the Pact. The facilitators guided 

participants  through  a  series  of  questions  unique  to  each  thematic  topic,  harvested  information  from  the 

participants’ discussions, and shared these “harvester sheets” with the Commission for analysis (Section 4.2).   

Summary of relevant attachments and position papers 

A total of 101 papers have been identified and analysed to date, with 23 submitted formally though the open 

public  consultation  and  the  remainder  were  sourced  online  outside  the  open  public  consultation.  The  papers 

underlined the importance of additional information sharing through development of forums and provided a 

range of ideas on the types of information needed to support pledges and wider climate action; in particular, 

information on how to access financial support to help transition to a low-carbon economy and a more systemic 

approach as to how this information is shared. A number of papers highlighted investment in education, such as 

upskilling,  as  important,  enabling  more  citizens  to  actively  engage  in  existing  initiatives.  Several  papers 

suggested a large selection of existing initiatives/policies as key foundations to developing the Pact.  The papers 

presented a positive opinion of the role that pledges can play in driving climate action, specifically in acting 

as an  umbrella initiative to inspire local action and ensure  inclusive policy-making. In addition, the papers 

highlighted  that  collaboration  between  different  actors  is  critical  to  the  Pact  as  well  as  to  achieving  wider 

climate  objectives.  To  promote  public  collaboration,  papers  also  suggested  that  there  is  a  need  for  better 

information on regulatory and policy frameworks to support research and innovation. Authors provided a range 

of ideas and suggestions regarding how collaboration could be structured and governed and highlighted that a 

wide range of stakeholders should be involved. Specifically, open multi-stakeholder platforms were identified 

as  a  key  means  to  promoting  collaboration.  These  platforms  should  be  organised  to  find  solutions  and  best 

practices in Member States to respond to challenges in different sectors at the EU level.  Another notable 

point  extracted  from  the  analysis  of  the  papers  is  that  the  Pact  could  foster  new  and  complement  existing 

initiatives, in particular by facilitating carbon neutral strategies to be developed in various sectors. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Introduction 

This  report  provides  an  analysis  of  the  responses  received  to  the  open  public  consultation  on  the  European 

Climate Pact (the Pact). The Pact, part of the European Commission’s President’s guidelines and of the European 

Green Deal, is an initiative that aims to engage citizens, communities and organisations in all sectors of society 

and economy in designing new climate action, sharing information, launching grassroots activities and showcasing 

solutions  that  others  can  follow.  The  Pact  aspires  to  build  on  and  amplify  existing  activities  and  trigger  and 

embrace new ones, all the while offering opportunities for learning, exchange, co-creation, and collaboration.16 

The open public consultation invited all interested stakeholders to share their views on the Pact. It is to be noted 

that the results of the consultation reflect, with a high probability, the opinions of society already in favour of 

climate action.17  

The activities that have been undertaken in this consultation are:  an online public consultation; two online 

webinars, facilitated through Zoom; and a collection and analysis of relevant position papers to further inform 

the consultation. The results of the consultation are presented in this report and follow the same structure as 

the consultation questionnaire (see below). In addition to the analysis of the consultation responses, this report 

provides  a  summary  and  analysis  of  accompanying  position  papers  and  other  relevant  documents  submitted 

through the consultation or elicited through other means. The consultation was open for 15 weeks from March 

4th to June 17th, 2020. 

This report is therefore divided into the following chapters: 

1.  Chapter 1: Introduction; 
2.  Chapter 2: Analytical approach; 
3.  Chapter 3: Results of the consultation (following the same structure as the questionnaire); 
4.  Chapter 4: Results of the webinars; 
5.  Chapter 5: Summary and analysis of consultation attachments and other relevant position papers; 
6.  Chapter 6: Stakeholder workshops to support the open public consultation. 

16 For more information on the Pact, please visit: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-action/pact_en.  
17 The results of Question 37 indicate that the large majority of respondents (85%) report being “quite” or “very” climate-
friendly. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 Analytical approach 

2.1  Target group, timing, and structure of the Open Public Consultation 

2.1.1  Target group 

All interested citizens and organisations were invited to respond to the consultation. To facilitate this, it was 

possible to contribute to the survey in any of the 24 official EU languages.  

2.1.2  Timing 

The consultation was open for 15 weeks from March 4th to June 17th, 2020.  

2.1.3 

Structure 

The consultation consisted of a questionnaire of 41 questions uploaded on the EUSurvey platform and divided 

into five (5) main sections (in addition to a general “About you” section): I. Talking about climate change and 

environmental  crisis:  awareness  and  information;  II.  Triggering  action:  pledges  and  initiatives;  III.  Working 

together: platforms; IV. Ideas and suggestions for further development; V. Your climate actions and interest in 

the Pact.  

A range of questions were used in this survey. The survey also included 20 mandatory questions. Some questions 

allowed the discrete selection of one answer. In this case, the results presented in this report indicate the total 

number  of  responses.  Some  questions  offered  more  than  one  option  to  select.  Where  this  is  the  case,  total 

responses may exceed the total number of respondents if they have selected more than one statement. Where 

this is the case, this is clearly stated in the figures’ captions. However, the total number of respondents replying 

to each question is clearly indicated. 

Scale interpretation  

A  few  questions  on  the  extent  of  companies’  or  individuals’  climate  friendliness  were  included  in  the 

questionnaire.  These  were  accompanied  by  the  possibility  of  selecting  answers  on  a  scale  of  1  to  4,  with  an 

additional option for “do not know”. For example,  Q37 asked respondents how climate-friendly they  or their 

organisations were, and the question included a scale of 1 to 4, with an option for “do not know” (i.e. from “1. 

Not at all climate-friendly” to “4. Very climate-friendly”) (results are presented in Chapter 3 of this report). 

Closed questions 

Most questions were closed questions presented as multiple-choice or multiple-answer questions (i.e., multiple-

choice questions where multiple answers were possible). In total, there were nine multiple-choice questions and 

17 multiple-answer questions. Amongst all closed questions, 18 were mandatory. 

Open-ended questions 

There were also a maximum of 27 open-ended questions (either linked to closed questions or independent from 

the latter), which have been categorised into three groups, as described in Table 2-1. Amongst all open-ended 

questions, two were mandatory (excluding Category 1 and 2 questions, which were only mandatory for certain 

respondents, depending on their earlier selections). 

Table 2-1 Definition of categories of open-ended question and how these are analysed 

Category 1 
 ‘Other’ 

Category 2 
 ‘Opinion’ 

Category 3 
 ‘Open’ 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Occurrence in 
questionnaire 

Purpose of the 
question 

Type of 
analysis 

19 

4 

3 

Open-ended questions 
asking respondents to 
specify their choice of 
‘other’ in cases where they 
made this selection 
(including two open-ended 
questions where 
organisations were asked 
for the organisation name 
and transparency number 

One by one in-situ 
reclassification within the 
Analytical Workbook of the 
‘other’ category using the 
existing options. 

If in any case, 
reclassification is not 
possible using the existing 
options, an additional class 
is created. 

Open-ended questions 
asking respondents to 
provide further insights on 
their selected responses 

Stand-alone open-ended 
questions asking 
respondents to fully state 
their answers in an open 
text field (sometimes 
including important 
references or examples). 

Semi-automated creation 
of a codebook to 
determine what is 
discussed the most.  

Semi-automated creation 
of a codebook to 
determine what is 
discussed the most.  

Querying the data  
to determine how the 
responses fit within the 
context of each question.  

Querying the data  
to determine how the 
responses fit within the 
context of each question.  

A transcript of the survey can be found in Annex A of this report. Questions have been numbered to make 

referral between and within documents easier. 

2.2  Method of analysis 

The  full  dataset  resulting  from  the  consultation  contains  the  results  from  3,510  responses  (as  of  June  17th, 

2020).  

2.2.1 

Analysis of closed questions 

The results were quantitatively analysed. For each question, the number of respondents (n) is indicated as (n=x) 

(this number can vary from question to question, depending on whether the question was mandatory and/or open 

to all respondents). The number of respondents is also expressed as a percentage of the total. In some cases, 

these  percentages  do  not  add  up  to  100%  either  because  numbers  have  been  rounded  to  the  nearest  whole 

number, or respondents were able to choose more than one answer (as described in the previous section). All 

predefined answers appear in the figures and tables of this report, unless stated otherwise. For a large share of 

questions,  an  additional  cross-analysis  has  been  done  to  compare  responses  between  different  questions.  In 

particular,  answers  have  been  correlated  with  the  type  of  respondents  participating  in  the  open  public 

consultation (i.e., stakeholders as defined in Question 2 of the questionnaire, or specific groups such as the youth 

or the education sector). A new category of “youth” was defined to highlight the youth’s contributions to the 

questionnaire. This group consists of respondents until the age of 30 and/or relevant youth-led organisations. 

The education sector was also considered a particularly important respondent category. The group includes all 

those respondents that selected “education/training” as their sector of activity. These two additional categories 

are grouped into “specific stakeholders”. 

In two cases, Question 2 and Question 11, “other” responses were re-classified if considered that they would be 

better  suited  in  pre-defined  categories.  This  was  done  to  improve  the  quality  of  analysis,  based  on  expert 

judgement. The results of these questions, after re-classification, are presented in Chapter 3. 

19 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.2 

Analysis of open-ended responses 

Respondents had the option of elaborating on their answers in open text fields or responding to stand-alone open-

ended  questions  (as  described  in  the  previous  section).  Open-ended  questions  have  been  analysed  using  a 

specialised software called ATLAS.ti.18 Responses in all languages were analysed after having been translated to 

English using machine translation. Failed translations were manually corrected by the consortium members. After 

translation, specific prefixes were included in each of the open-question headings as  identifiers  for ATLAS.ti. 

ATLAS.ti interprets the column headers and cells of the Excel table in various ways and turns them into primary 

documents (with specific content), primary document families, quotations, codes, comments, and code families. 

For the analysis, we imported all Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 open questions as separate documents. 

In ATLAS.ti, data are imported on a case-by-case basis, which means that each row, or completed questionnaire, 

of the Excel table that is imported from the online survey is transformed into a primary document.  

Analysing  survey  data  requires  coding  and  the  development  of  a  codebook.  The  aim  is  to  first  identify  the 

keywords and themes mentioned by respondents, and then attribute theses as established “codes” for which a 

consensus can be built and counted. For instance, if one respondent mentions a need for more capacity building, 

“more capacity building” can be coded and then used to count further responses that communicated the same 

need for more capacity building. A useful tool for this is the auto-coding feature (“Auto Coding”), in which a 

Boolean search can be created to attribute responses to established codes, e.g. for “more” (AND) “capacity” 

(AND)  “building”.  Naturally,  there  are  limitations  to  auto-coding,  and  thus  this  feature  allows  for  manual 

confirmation  of  each  code  that  it  finds.  This  proved  a  useful  tool  for  certain  buzzwords,  themes,  and  easily 

searchable sentiments; however it  displayed  difficulty  with  more  subtle responses which then had to be read 

manually to attribute the correct code.  

After  coding,  further  analysis  was  done  with  the  co-occurrence  table  in  ATLAS.ti  (Figure  2-1).  As  the  name 

suggests,  the  co-occurrence  analysis  allows  for  the  cross-referencing  of  codes  in  matrix-like  fashion.  For  the 

purpose of  analysing the questionnaire, a question was selected as the column (e.g. Question 27) and  all the 

codes associated with that question were then selected as the rows. This allowed for each code to be quantified 

and the exported to Excel to be ranked and graphed.  

18 For more information on ATLAS.ti, please visit https://atlasti.com/.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2-1 Screenshot of a co-occurrence table in ATLAS.ti 

2.2.3 

Analysis of position papers and attachments 

Respondents could also send relevant files or position papers for this open public consultation. 23 attachments 

received  via  the  consultation  were  provided.  In  addition,  78  papers  related  to  the  Pact  but  external  to  the 

consultation were identified and analysed. 

Selection of papers 

A prioritisation criterion was needed in order to rank the papers found online, to be able to analyse all submissions 

coming through the consultation. The prioritisation criterion is based on an assessment of the paper’s relevance 

to the topic. A stand-alone category “first priority” has been defined to categorise all open public consultation 

submission papers. Online papers can be categorised as priority I, priority II, or priority III, with “I” referring to 

the most important and “III” the least. For example, priority I was assigned to papers that offer valuable insights 

from  key  stakeholders  on  the  relevance  of  industry  collaboration  and  stakeholders’  participation  to  achieve 

climate neutrality. 

A summary of the source of papers be found in Table 2-2.  

Table 2-2 Paper analysis: selection of papers 

European Climate Pact Papers 

First Priority 

Priority I  Priority II  Priority III 

Total 

Open public consultation submission 

Online paper 

Grand Total 

23 

3 

0 

14 

0 

24 

0 

37 

23 

78 

101 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Further details on all papers can be found in  Annex B and Annex D. Annex B provides a brief summary of the 

numbers of papers in different categories and Annex D provides summarised information on the individual papers.  

Methodology  

In terms of the methodology for reviewing the papers once selected, an Excel document has been used to assist 

in the analysis. This is split into the following sheets: “Cover” (explaining how the document should be used), 

“PP catalogue” (containing all the information on the papers included in the analysis), “List” (providing all the 

items used in the dropdown lists), “Summary” (including tables and charts summarising particular information 

from  the  “PP  catalogue”  sheet),  “Raw  data”  (containing  all  the  information  received  from  the  European 

Commission, i.e., mostly questionnaire results), and “Processed data” (encompassing any information attained 

from the consultation questionnaire). 

The analysis of the papers (“PP catalogue” sheet) first includes a set of descriptive variables as follows:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Paper ID: identification number of the paper; 

Topic:  some  papers  contain  information  from  consultation  European  Climate  Pact  and  EU  2030  GHG 

emission reduction targets – these papers have been categorised as “both”; 

Title: paper complete title; 

Author: paper complete list of authors;  

Stakeholder group: Identification of the group of stakeholders that wrote the position paper; 

Language: European language used in the position paper; 

• 
•  Number of pages: Indication of how many pages the document has; 
• 

Type of document: Identification of the type of document (i.e., Press Release: News Story for Media; 

Position Paper: Paper describing at length an opinion; Study: Academic Study; Strategy/Vision: Idea of 

the  Future;  Roadmap:  Steps  for  the  Future;  Policy  Brief:  Brief  description  of  Policy;  Policy  Paper: 

Extended  description  of  Policy;  Discussion  Paper:  Paper  with  a  Broad  View;  Joint  Declaration: 

Declaration with Multiple Participants; Letter to EU Parliament: Letter; Open Letter: Letter Intended 

for  the  Public;  Opinion:  Brief  Personal  Opinion;  Manifesto:  Published  Declaration  of  Intentions;  Blog 

Post: Online Post);  

Selected  for  analysis:  Decision  on  selection  based  on  the  relevance  of  the  position  paper  to  the 

consultation,  key topics; 

Source: Sources of papers to be considered: online papers, papers submitted to consultations , inception 

impact assessments;  

Priority Category (First priority, I, II, III): see above for description;  

Comments about selection: European Commission Feedback on initial list to prioritise paper analysis. 

Optional, and only once received European Commission feedback.  

• 

• 

• 

• 

The analysis is followed by a set of review categories looking to draw out deeper analysis of position papers. 

These include:  

• 

• 

Summary:  A  short  summary  (abstract)  of  the  key  messages  and  opinions  expressed  by  the  document 

which are most relevant for the consultation. This mirrors the  summary provided in the  consultation 

reports (see Annex D);  

Key Issues Raised: A brief description of key issues highlighted in the document regarding (1) ideas for 

improvement and (2) risks/issues with current proposals;  

Key topics: A category that intends to identify the key topics that summarize the paper;   

• 
•  Overall Sentiment: A closed category which captures the overall position of the stakeholder towards the 

Pact. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
The analysis focuses on several key topics: four include open text and five categorical variables. This helps having 

a harmonised analysis of the papers as well as having information that can be compared. Table 2-3 includes a 

summary  of  the  key  topics  and  their  explanations.  Table  2-4  includes  a  summary  of  additional  categorical 

variables  and  their  explanations.  These  additional  categorical  variables  are  meant  to  give  more  quantitative 

answers than the open-ended key topics, allowing the analysis to give quantitative actions. 

Analysts initially read through the consultation questionnaire as well as the information on the  Pact from the 

dedicated website and relevant pages in the European Green Deal Communication. This was meant to ensure a 

good understanding of the Pact and the type of information that would benefit the Commission. 

Then the analysis was performed with a full reading of each of the papers. The Excel would act as a guideline 

with  the  questions  being  answered  during  the  reading,  focusing  on  actionable  comments  for  the  Commission 

where possible. To check information whether had not been missed, several keyword searches were performed 

including: “collaboration”, “Pact”, “pledge”, “citizen”, “platform”, “adaptation”, and “neutrality”. 

Table 2-3 Paper analysis: Key topics and explanations 

Variable  

Description  

1. What information would best help you achieve 
the goals of the Climate Pact? 

A reference from stakeholders on: useful types and 
channels to access information about climate change and 
the associated environmental crisis in the context of the 
Pact, and useful channels and events to raise awareness. 

2. How can the Pact encourage concrete pledges 
and commitments for climate action? 

Suggestions from stakeholders on what the COM can do to 
trigger successful pledges and initiatives. 

3. How can the Climate Pact promote and support 
new and existing initiatives and pledges/action 
implementation? 

Capturing comment on (1) any synergies or conflicts the 
Pact could have with existing climate action initiatives, 
and (2) how can these be harnessed or avoided. 

4. How can the Pact promote collaboration and 
information exchange? 

A reference on (1) potential barriers to harnessing 
collaboration between different actors (e.g. citizens, 
private sector, NGOs), (2) who would be good to 
collaborate to make pledges and (3) how can COM support 
these collaborations. 

Table 2-4 Paper analysis: Additional categorical variables and explanations 

Variable  

Description  

1.  How important is this information mentioned 
in Key topic 1 in achieving Climate Pact goals 
referred to in key topic 1(see Error! R
eference source not found.) 

Stakeholder's opinion on whether they believe it’s very 
important, somewhat important or not important 

2.  How can the Pact give everyone a voice and 

space to design new climate actions? 

Stakeholder's suggestions for potential platforms to have 
their opinions heard 

3.  Which existing relevant initiatives should the 

Pact build on and link to? 

4.  Which relevant approaches will have the most 

significant impact? 

5.  How can the Pact specifically support zero-
energy buildings, green mobility, and tree-
planting? 

Stakeholder's opinion on which parts of the Climate Pact 
are successful and should be promoted 

A comment on which approaches could be most relevant in 
terms of enabling the implementation of the Pact and 
triggering communication, collaboration, and climate 
action 

Suggestions from the stakeholder aimed at supporting 
these specific areas 

2.2.4 

Identification of coordinated responses 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Two sets of coordinated responses (or campaigns) have been identified. To identify potential campaigns, the 

responses  to  Q36  (“Suggestions  for  additional  functions  of  the  Climate  Pact”)  were  used,  since  the  question 

represented one of the main (Category 3) open-ended questions, and it was mandatory to complete.  

Although one campaign is of significant size (i.e. Campaign 1), the answers provided by respondents within the 

campaign are not identical and the answers across other questions differ. Therefore,  responses as part of the 

two  campaigns  are  not  treated  differently  from  other  responses,  but  a  short  overview  of  their  messages  is 

presented below: 

• 

Campaign  1  (n=344)  consisted  of  approximately  95%  EU  citizens.  The  remaining  respondents  were 

companies  or  businesses  (n=3),  environmental  organisations  (n=7),  and  NGOs  (n=8).  The  majority  of 

respondents were also of German origin (98%). Some of the key messages that were brought up by the 

campaign include: 

o  When  asked  which  initiatives  respondents  are  involved  with  or  which  initiatives  would  be 
Future 

and  Q29), 

interested 

(in  Q27 

Fridays 

joining 

Pact 

the 

for 

in 

(https://fridaysforfuture.org/) came up numerous times, in addition to the German branch of 

Parents 

for 

Future 

(https://parentsforfuture.de/), 

and 

Scientists 

for 

Future 

(https://scientistsforfuture.org/);  

o  When asked for suggestions on additional functions the Pact should provide or topics that it 
should address (in Q36), respondents responded with different combinations of the following 

topics/functions: 

▪ 
▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

Promotion of regional and ecological agriculture; 

Promotion of a decentralised and citizen-powered energy system, based on renewable 

energy technologies (particularly wind and solar PV); 

A  clear  and  broad  informational  campaign  (similar  to  that  of  COVID-19)  on  the 

connections between the drought experienced in recent years and the climate crisis, 

rising temperatures, and the consequent impacts that we will face; 

Climate, environmental and species protection  as mandatory cross-cutting issues to 

be introduced in the school curriculum; 

Promotion of e-mobility; 

▪ 
▪ 
▪  Giving greater importance to climate protection in education. 

Energy in citizens’ hands and energy cooperatives;  

• 

Campaign 2 (n=13) is made up of EU citizens (n=6), NGOs (n=4), environmental organisations (n=1), as 

well as The Finnish Agenda 2030 Youth Group (categorised as “other”  respondent). More than half of 

respondents come from Belgium (n=4), France (n=2), and Finland (n=2), with the remainder coming from 

Malta, UK, Germany, Czechia, and the Netherlands. Some of the key messages that were brought up by 

the campaign include: 

o  The Pact would best complement and scale-up existing projects by offering funding to the civil 
society organisations, with a particular focus on bottom-up and grassroots initiatives (Q27); 

o  When  asked  which  initiatives  respondents  are  involved  with  or  which  initiatives  would  be 
interested in joining the Pact (in Q27 and Q29), all respondents specified Generation Climate 

Europe (https://gceurope.org/); and, 

o  When asked for suggestions on additional functions the Pact should provide or topics that it 
should address (in Q36), respondents noted that the Pact should create a regular, meaningful 

youth  dialogue  on  climate  and  environmental  policies  through  Youth  Climate  Roundtables, 

allowing  young  people  to  enter  into  dialogue  with  the  Commission,  the  Council  and  the 

Parliament. 

24 

 
 
 
25 

 
 
 
 
3 Results of the Open Public Consultation 

3.1  Respondent profile 

3.1.1 

Stakeholder coverage [Q2, Q3, Q8] and demographic characteristics [Q12, Q13, Q14] 

In  total,  3,510  respondents  participated  in  the  public  consultation.  The  large  majority  of  respondents  (80%) 

were EU citizens, followed by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (5%) (Figure 3-1). “Other” stakeholders 

represented 1% of respondents, however, this category was manually adjusted. 37 “other” responses were re-

classified to  different (existing) categories, based on the  respondent’s answers to other questions and expert 

judgement.  This  was  done  to  provide  a  better  overview  of  the  different  stakeholders  participating  in  the 

questionnaire and to improve the quality of cross-analyses further in the report.  

Amongst all organisations responding to this open public consultation (n=668) (i.e., respondents replying in their 

professional capacity or “other” stakeholders), many were  micro (1-9 employees) or large (250+ employees) 

organisations (33% and 32%, respectively) (Figure 3-3). Adding up the minimum size of organisations represented 

in this questionnaire,  respondents participating in their professional capacity responded on behalf of at least 

59,222  employees  (Table  3-1).  A  large  share  of  academic/research  institutions  (49%),  NGOs  (52%),  other 

stakeholders  (53%),  business  associations  (60%),  companies/business  organisations  (63%),  and  consumer 

organisations  (n=1,  100%)  responding  to  this  questionnaire  were  international;  while  a  large  share  of 

environmental organisations (36%) and public authorities (49%) were local ( consultation Figure 3-2).  

Figure 3-1 Responses to Question 2 of the questionnaire 

Note: The youth category is defined as respondents under the age of 30 or respondents representing relevant youth-led 
organisations. This category was not defined within Question 2, but was created using data collected in Questions 7 
(“Organisation name”) and 12 (“Age”). Just under one-third of respondents (28%) belong to this category, as a share of 
total respondents (n=3,510). 

26 

28%, 981 0%, 1 0%, 12 1%, 37 1%, 42 2%, 56 2%, 70 2%, 84 3%, 110 4%, 124 5%, 174 80%, 2 800 YouthConsumer organisationTrade unionOtherNon-EU citizenEnvironmental organisationBusiness associationAcademic/research institutionPublic authorityCompany/business organisationNon-governmental organisation (NGO)EU citizen[Q2] "I am giving my contribution as" (n=3510) 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-2 Responses to Question 3 of the questionnaire (split according to stakeholder types) 

Note: Citizens could not respond to this question, but since two respondents were re-classified from organisations to EU 
citizens, they are included in the graph. 

Figure 3-3 Responses to Question 8 of the questionnaire 

Table 3-1 Employee representation derived from responses to Question 8 of the questionnaire 

Organisation size 

Number of respondents 

Minimum number of 

employees represented 

Micro (1 to 9 employees) 

Small (10 to 49 employees) 

Medium (50 to 249 employees) 

Large (250 or more employees) 

TOTAL 

222 

145 

91 

212 

670 

222 

1,450 

4,550 

53,000 

59,222 

In terms of demographic characteristics, there was a gender balance among respondents (half were male (50%) 

and the other approximate half (47%) were female. There were respondents from all ages: from minors to beyond 

27 

100%50%44%53%32%60%49%63%6%52%56%16%16%31%25%18%17%23%50%16%16%7%7%12%29%9%16%36%2%19%7%49%15%Consumer organisation (n=1)EU citizen (n=2)Trade union (n=9)Other (n=32)Environmental organisation (n=44)Business association (n=55)Academic/research institution (n=59)Company/business organisation (n=95)Public authority (n=107)Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (n=143)[Q3] "Scope" (n=547)InternationalNationalRegionalLocalMedium (50 to 249 employees), 52, 13%Small (10 to 49 employees), 95, 24%Large (250 or more), 112, 28%Micro (1 to 9 employees), 143, 35%[Q8] "Organisation size" (n=402) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
80 years old;  almost one third of all respondents (32%)  were between the ages of 18 and  30 (Figure 3-4 and 

Figure  3-5).  Furthermore,  respondents  had  all  levels  of  education:  from  primary  school  to  PhD.  67%  of 

respondents had a university degree (Bachelor, Master) (Figure 3-6). 

Figure 3-4 Responses to Question 12 of the questionnaire 

Figure 3-5 Responses to Question 13 of the questionnaire 

28 

0%, 1 2%, 50 2%, 59 8%, 215 17%, 466 18%, 514 21%, 582 32%, 892 81>71-80<1861-7051-6041-5031-4018-30[Q12] "Age group" (n=2779)Other, 14 , 0.50%Rather not say, 61 , 2%Female, 1 302 , 47%Male, 1 396 , 50%[Q13] "Gender" (n=618) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-6 Responses to Question 14 of the questionnaire 

3.1.2 

Language coverage [Q1] and country of origin [Q10] 

Respondents  could  provide  answers  to  the  consultation  in  all  official  EU  languages.  Approximately  35%  of 

respondents replied to the questionnaire in German (39% of respondents being of German origin), while 28% did 

so in English, and 18% in French (Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8). Furthermore, the large majority (96%) of respondents 

had an EU nationality (Figure 3-9 ). 

Figure 3-7 Responses to Question 1 of the questionnaire (top 10 responses) 

Furthermore, the large majority of respondents (96%) were of EU origin. There were respondents from all the 

27  EU  countries.  Amongst  all  respondents,  a  significant  share  came  from  Germany  (39%), followed  by  France 

(14%), Belgium (12%), Italy (7%), and Spain (6%) (Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9). Almost 80% of respondents originated 

from these countries, collectively. 

29 

1%, 19 5%, 129 8%, 226 9%, 237 11%, 315 67%, 1 842 Primary schoolVocational education/trade schoolApplied universityHigh schoolPhD/DoctorateUniversity level (Bachelor, Master)[Q14] "Education" (n=2768)3%, 117 1%, 25 1%, 34 1%, 36 2%, 60 3%, 104 4%, 136 4%, 154 18%, 631 28%, 978 35%, 1 235 Other languageCzechPolishFinnishPortugueseDutchSpanishItalianFrenchEnglishGerman[Q1] "Language of my contribution" (top 10 languages) (n=3510) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-8 Responses to Question 10 of the questionnaire (EU and non-EU nationalities) 

Note: The most represented non-EU nationalities include the United Kingdom (n=35), Switzerland (n=12), Turkey (n=8), 
the United States (n=8), Brazil (n=7), Norway (n=5), Australia (n=4),  Serbia (n=4), Albania (n=3), and India (n=3).  

30 

4%, 128 0%, 5 0%, 5 0%, 6 0%, 6 0%, 7 0%, 10 0%, 11 0%, 11 0%, 11 0%, 16 1%, 25 1%, 27 1%, 36 1%, 41 1%, 43 1%, 44 1%, 47 1%, 48 1%, 50 2%, 61 2%, 80 2%, 85 6%, 196 7%, 234 12%, 434 14%, 475 39%, 1 368 Non-EU countriesMaltaCyprusLithuaniaEstoniaLatviaSloveniaLuxembourgCroatiaBulgariaDenmarkGreeceSlovakiaSwedenIrelandHungaryRomaniaCzechiaPolandAustriaFinlandPortugalNetherlandsSpainItalyBelgiumFranceGermany[Q10] "Country of origin" (n=3510) -EU vs. non-EU 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-9 Responses to Question 10 of the questionnaire (map of EU and non-EU nationalities) 

Note: This figure was created using Excel, with a tool powered by Bing (© DSAT Editor, GeoNames). 

3.1.3 

Sectors of activity [Q11] 

The  most  common  sectors  of  activity  of  respondents  were:  “education/training”  (23%),  “research  and 

innovation”  (21%),  and  “other”  (12%)  (Figure  3-10).  Amongst  “other”  sectors  many  respondents  reiterated 

sectors that were included options in the survey, so they have been re-allocated to existing categories. Examples 

include “art” and “culture” being re-allocated to “Other Community, Social and Personal Services” based on the 

Industrial Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) of economic activities.19 Of the remaining “other” responses, 

the most common were students (12%) and persons in retirement (10%). It is to be noted that 32 respondents 

19 UN Statistical Commission (2002), Industrial Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, 
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/doc02/isic.pdf. 

31 

Germany, 1 368, 39%France, 475, 14%Belgium, 434, 12%Italy, 234, 7%Spain, 196, 6%Netherlands, 85, 2%Portugal, 80, 2%Finland, 61, 2%Austria, 50, 1%Poland, 48, 1%Czechia, 47, 1%Romania, 44, 1%Hungary, 43, 1%Ireland, 41, 1%Sweden, 36, 1%Greece, 25, 1%Slovakia, 27, 1%Denmark, 16, 0%Bulgaria, 11, 0%Croatia, 11, 0%Luxembourg, 11, 0%Slovenia, 10, 0%Latvia, 7, 0%Estonia, 6, 0%Lithuania, 6, 0%Cyprus, 5, 0%Malta, 5, 0%Non-EU countries, 128, 4%[Q10]“Country of origin” (n=3510) –EU vs. non-EU 
 
  
   
 
 
 
stated being active in the “Consumers association” sector, despite there being only one respondent participating 

in the consultation on behalf of consumer organisations, as per Question 2 (Figure 3-1). Respondents being active 

in this sector replied in their individual capacity, as EU citizens, except for one non-governmental organisation 

(NGO). 

As can be seen from Table 3-2, a large share of non-EU citizens responding to this consultation aligned themselves 

with  the  “research  and  innovation”  sector  (40%)  and  many  business  associations  (31%  vs  9%  across  all 

organisations)  represented  the  “manufacturing”  sector.  Trade  unions  represented  the  “education/training” 

sector in a larger proportion than other organisations (58% compared to an average of 29% for all organisations). 

The education sector was defined based on their response to Question 11, so 100% of the sector belongs to the 

“education/training”  sector,  as  shown  in  the  table  below.  Similarly,  “young  students”  were  defined  by  their 

belonging to “other” sectors, namely, by identifying themselves as “students”. 

Figure 3-10 Responses to Question 11 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers.  

Note 2: Respondents could select multiple answers. 4,655 answers were received in total from 3,413 respondents, making 
the average number of responses per respondent 1.4 responses. 

32 

0%, 17 1%, 21 1%, 29 1%, 30 1%, 32 1%, 48 2%, 72 2%, 81 4%, 136 5%, 174 6%, 200 7%, 229 8%, 277 9%, 298 9%, 310 11%, 364 12%, 410 12%, 421 21%, 719 23%, 787 Activities of Private Households as EmployersMining and QuarryingFishingExtraterritorial Organisations and BodiesConsumers associationHotels and RestaurantsFinancial IntermediationWholesale and Retail TradeConstructionTransport, Storage and CommunicationsElectricity, Gas and Water SupplyManufacturingAgriculture, Hunting and ForestryReal Estate, Renting and Business ActivitiesHealth and Social WorkOther Community, Social and Personal ServicesPublic Administration and DefenceOtherResearch and innovationEducation/training[Q11] "Please indicate the sector you are active in" (n=3413) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-2 Responses to Question 11 of the questionnaire (split according to stakeholders) 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having 
selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: The order of sectors of activity in the top row of the table follows a descending order based on the number of professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective sectors in their 
responses (i.e. based on the numbers in the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average,  compared  to  the  average  of  the  next-highest  category,  i.e.  for  ‘individuals’, 
‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for academic/research institutions, 
business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the 
‘youth’ category. The orange colouring indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

33 

Sector of activityEducation/trainingResearch and innovationOtherPublic Administration and DefenceOther Community, Social and Personal ServicesAgriculture, Hunting and ForestryElectricity, Gas and Water SupplyTransport, Storage and CommunicationsManufacturingHealth and Social WorkConstructionReal Estate, Renting and Business ActivitiesWholesale and Retail TradeFinancial IntermediationFishingHotels and RestaurantsExtraterritorial Organisations and BodiesConsumers associationMining and QuarryingActivities of Private Households as EmployersTotal average (n=3413)23%21%12%12%11%8%6%5%7%9%4%9%2%2%1%1%1%1%1%0%As an individual in a personal capacity (n=2754)22%20%11%11%10%7%5%4%6%10%3%9%2%2%1%1%1%1%0%0%Of which:EU citizen (n=2712)22%20%11%11%10%7%5%4%6%10%3%9%2%2%1%1%1%1%0%0%Non-EU citizen (n=42)29%40%12%2%5%7%5%2%10%0%7%10%2%2%0%0%0%0%0%0%In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation (n=659)29%24%16%15%15%15%11%10%9%7%6%6%3%3%2%2%2%2%1%1%Of which:Academic/research institution (n=83)46%65%5%0%4%11%2%2%2%6%4%1%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%Business association (n=68)4%15%12%0%6%19%22%13%31%3%15%3%6%3%3%3%0%0%0%0%Company/business organisation (n=123)15%26%2%2%9%13%23%20%17%2%10%15%5%3%0%2%0%0%2%0%Consumer organisation (n=1)0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%100%0%0%Environmental organisation (n=55)38%13%38%4%18%18%5%9%0%7%4%11%2%2%0%0%2%2%2%0%Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (n=174)40%22%29%4%28%20%7%9%3%13%3%4%2%2%4%2%4%4%2%1%Trade union (n=12)58%17%8%8%17%25%8%17%17%8%17%0%17%8%8%8%8%0%8%8%Public authority (n=106)20%7%6%76%8%5%8%5%3%4%4%0%0%2%1%1%0%0%0%0%Other (n=37)27%22%32%19%27%16%14%11%8%5%8%11%5%8%11%8%8%8%5%5%Specific stakeholders (n=1715)46%21%12%6%9%8%4%3%3%8%3%5%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%0%Of which:Education sector (n=787)100%25%5%5%11%9%4%4%2%9%3%2%1%1%1%1%2%2%1%1%Youth (n=928)29%23%19%7%10%8%5%4%3%10%3%7%1%2%1%1%1%1%1%0%Of which:Young professionals (n=835)31%25%10%8%11%9%6%4%4%11%4%8%1%2%1%1%1%1%1%0%Young students (n=93)4%5%100%0%1%1%0%0%0%1%0%1%0%0%0%0%1%0%0%0% 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2  Talking about climate change and environmental crisis: awareness and 

information 

3.2.1  Useful information under the Climate Pact [Q16] 

Respondents were asked what information would be useful for them or their organisations under the  Pact and 

they could select up to four answers. Amongst the options shown in Figure 3-11 below, the most commonly cited 

answers were: “climate change and environmental policies and action” (57%), “concrete actions that I or my 

organisation can take” (51%), climate and environmental risks and impacts (39-47% depending on the specific 

topic),  available support (32-18% depending on the  specific topic), how to engage  with  reliable information 

(30%) and others’ actions (29%). However, compared to the average, “concrete actions” were considered less 

important  by  professionals  (34%  vs  51%)  (Table  3-3).  Academic/research  institutions  particularly  considered 

information about climate change, environmental crises, and environmental policies to be important (55%-74%). 

Information on climate change and environmental crises was also considered highly important by trade unions 

(58%), as well as information on “what others are doing” (67%). In both cases, these shares were higher than the 

average  of  all  professionals.  Compared  to  other  professionals,  public  authorities  were  more  in  favour  of 

information about “support available to cope with the effects of climate change” (42% vs 27%). 

“Other” types of information (6%) included responses that were reiterations of the provided categories as well 

as original responses. A bulk share of these asked for financial support available to take action (15%), as well 

as information on climate risks and ways and means to prepare for those (13%); granular, assessable climate 

data (11%), and information on climate risks and ways and means to prepare for those (13%).  

Figure 3-11 Responses to Question 16 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select up to four (4) answers. 12,907 answers were received in total from 3,491 respondents, 
making the average number of responses per respondent 3.7 responses. 

34 

6%, 210 18%, 623 20%, 701 29%, 1 015 30%, 1 037 32%, 1 115 39%, 1 356 42%, 1 452 47%, 1 624 51%, 1 770 57%, 2 004  - 500 1 000 1 500 2 000OtherSupport available to cope with the effects of climate changeSupport available to cope with the effects of mitigation measures(e.g. closures of coal mines, increases in fuel/energy prices)What others are doing (e.g. individual actions, collective initiatives)How to identify false or misleading information and how to bestengage with sources that spread reliable information, e.g. via…Advice and support that are available to help me or my organisationto take actionClimate change and environmental crises and their impactsThe costs of (in-)action and its social impactsInformation on climate risks (e.g. consequences on the food chain, water availability, health…) and ways and means to prepare for …Concrete actions that I or my organisation can take to become moreclimate-friendlyClimate change and environmental policies and action[Q16] "What information would be useful for you or your organisation under the European Climate Pact?" (n=3491) 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-3 Responses to Question 16 of the questionnaire, split per type of stakeholder 

Climate 
change 
and 
environm
ental 
policies 
and 
action 

The 
costs of 
(in-
)action 
and its 
social 
impacts 

Advice and 
support 
that are 
available to 
help me or 
my 
organisation 
to take 
action 

Information 
on climate 
risks (e.g. 
consequences 
on the food 
chain, water 
availability, 
health…) and 
ways and 
means to 
prepare for 
those 

Climate 
change 
and 
environm
ental 
crises and 
their 
impacts 

What 
others are 
doing 
(e.g. 
individual 
actions, 
collective 
initiatives
) 

Concrete 
actions that 
I or my 
organisation 
can take to 
become 
more 
climate-
friendly 

Support 
availabl
e to 
cope 
with the 
effects 
of 
climate 
change 

Other 

Support 
available to 
cope with the 
effects of 
mitigation 
measures (e.g. 
closures of coal 
mines, 
increases in 
fuel/energy 
prices) 

How to identify 
false or 
misleading 
information and 
how to best 
engage with 
sources that 
spread reliable 
information, e.g. 
via online social 
media or in my 
social network. 

Type of information 

Total average (n=3491) 

42% 

32% 

47% 

39% 

29% 

51% 

18% 

20% 

30% 

6% 

As an individual in a personal 
capacity (n=2829) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2787) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity or 
on behalf of an organisation 
(n=662) 

Of which: 
Academic/research 
institution (n=84) 

Business association (n=70) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=123) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 
Environmental organisation 
(n=56) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) (n=171) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=109) 

Other (n=36) 

Specific stakeholders 
(n=1760) 

55% 

42% 

30% 

48% 

39% 

28% 

55% 

16% 

55% 

57% 

42% 

45% 

30% 

26% 

49% 

36% 

39% 

36% 

28% 

29% 

55% 

60% 

16% 

12% 

20% 

20% 

19% 

33% 

33% 

26% 

5% 

5% 

10% 

69% 

40% 

38% 

38% 

37% 

35% 

34% 

27% 

18% 

18% 

11% 

74% 

73% 

69% 

100% 

71% 

66% 

75% 

63% 

67% 

35% 

39% 

36% 

0% 

46% 

44% 

42% 

46% 

25% 

37% 

40% 

41% 

100% 

32% 

35% 

50% 

43% 

39% 

45% 

46% 

38% 

0% 

45% 

37% 

17% 

35% 

25% 

55% 

30% 

34% 

100% 

46% 

36% 

58% 

23% 

44% 

26% 

29% 

28% 

100% 

39% 

39% 

67% 

35% 

56% 

44% 

27% 

43% 

0% 

20% 

29% 

33% 

38% 

19% 

19% 

29% 

28% 

0% 

25% 

23% 

0% 

42% 

22% 

10% 

26% 

20% 

0% 

13% 

18% 

25% 

24% 

17% 

19% 

7% 

16% 

0% 

23% 

22% 

8% 

16% 

19% 

6% 

21% 

7% 

0% 

7% 

13% 

17% 

9% 

22% 

49% 

35% 

28% 

39% 

34% 

24% 

46% 

14% 

17% 

27% 

5% 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Climate 
change 
and 
environm
ental 
policies 
and 
action 

The 
costs of 
(in-
)action 
and its 
social 
impacts 

Advice and 
support 
that are 
available to 
help me or 
my 
organisation 
to take 
action 

Information 
on climate 
risks (e.g. 
consequences 
on the food 
chain, water 
availability, 
health…) and 
ways and 
means to 
prepare for 
those 

Climate 
change 
and 
environm
ental 
crises and 
their 
impacts 

What 
others are 
doing 
(e.g. 
individual 
actions, 
collective 
initiatives
) 

Concrete 
actions that 
I or my 
organisation 
can take to 
become 
more 
climate-
friendly 

Support 
availabl
e to 
cope 
with the 
effects 
of 
climate 
change 

Other 

Support 
available to 
cope with the 
effects of 
mitigation 
measures (e.g. 
closures of coal 
mines, 
increases in 
fuel/energy 
prices) 

How to identify 
false or 
misleading 
information and 
how to best 
engage with 
sources that 
spread reliable 
information, e.g. 
via online social 
media or in my 
social network. 

59% 

57% 

56% 

63% 

38% 

43% 

43% 

45% 

34% 

32% 

33% 

28% 

45% 

46% 

46% 

48% 

38% 

41% 

39% 

55% 

31% 

25% 

25% 

22% 

50% 

58% 

58% 

60% 

18% 

14% 

14% 

12% 

18% 

22% 

22% 

20% 

33% 

33% 

34% 

27% 

8% 

5% 

5% 

24% 

Type of information 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=785) 

Youth (n=974) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=882) 

Young students (n=92) 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of 
respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: The order of answers in the top row of the table follows a descending order based on the number of professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in 
their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note 3: The blue colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points above the average, compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for 
‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and 
‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

36 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
3.2.2 

Preferred sources of information [Q17] 

Respondents were also asked about their preferred sources of information. Once again, they could make up to 

four selections. Amongst the options listed in Figure 3-12 below, the most popular sources of information include: 

“scientists/experts/think 

tanks” 

(90%), 

“EU 

institutions/international 

organisations” 

(54%), 

“universities/schools”  (44%),  civil  society  organisations  (42%),  national/  regional/local  authorities  (38-32%) 

and Pact ambassadors (28%).%). Within “other” sources of information (4%), respondents highlighted the press 

(national/specialised/free press) and media (3838%), and independent organisations and research agencies that 

are not influenced by donor funding (29%).  

“Scientists/experts/think  tanks”  remained  the  top  choice  across  all  stakeholder  categories  (77-100%)  (Table 

3-4).  Amongst  individuals  responding  to  this  question,  non-EU  citizens  showed  more  support  for  receiving 

information  from  national  authorities  (62%)  compared  to  the  average  (36%).  Professionals  indicated  “EU 

institutions/international organisations” as being one of their preferred sources of information, to a higher extent 

than the average (70% compared to 54% overall). It is possible to observe that some organisations consider their 

own  information  as  relevant.  Amongst  professionals,  public  authorities  showed  a  preference  for  national, 

regional,  or  local  authorities  as  important  sources  of  information  (51-63%  vs  34-47%  across  all  organisations). 

Businesses and business associations selected “businesses” to a higher extent than other organisations (34-35% 

vs  15%),  academic/research  institutions  selected  “universities/schools”  in  a  higher  proportion  than  other 

organisations  (61%  vs  35%),  and  environmental  organisations  and  NGOs  favoured  “civil  society 

organisations/climate activists” more than the average (51-52% vs 34%). 

37 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3-12 Responses to Question 17 of the questionnaire  

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select up to four (4) answers. 12,371 answers were received in total from 3,494 respondents, 
making the average number of responses per respondent 3.5 responses. 

38 

4%, 1286%, 2098%, 2718%, 28728%, 98932%, 1 13538%, 1 32942%, 1 47244%, 1 53354%, 1 88690%, 3 13201 0002 0003 000OtherCelebrities/Influencers/Family and friends, people IknowYouth organisationsBusinesses“Climate Pact” ambassadors in various sections of the societyRegional and/or Local authoritiesNational authoritiesCivil society organisations/climate activistsUniversities/SchoolsEU institutions/international organisationsScientists/experts/think tanks[Q17] "What would be your preferred sources for information about climate change and how you can take action?" (n=3494) 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-4 Responses to Question 17 of the questionnaire, split per type of stakeholder 

Source of information 

Scientists/ 
experts/ 
think 
tanks 

EU 
institutions/ 
international 
organisations 

National 
authorities 

Universities
/ Schools 

Civil society 
organisations
/climate 
activists 

Regional 
and/or 
local 
authorities 

“Climate 
Pact” 
ambassador
s in various 
sections of 
the society 

Businesses 

Youth 
organisa-
tions 

Other 

Total average (n=3494 

90% 

54% 

38% 

44% 

42% 

32% 

28% 

8% 

8% 

90% 

90% 

83% 

50% 

36% 

46% 

44% 

32% 

30% 

50% 

57% 

35% 

62% 

46% 

55% 

44% 

31% 

32% 

36% 

30% 

29% 

7% 

6% 

14% 

8% 

8% 

10% 

Celebrities/ 
Influencers/
Family and 
friends, 
people I 
know 

6% 

7% 

7% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

88% 

70% 

47% 

35% 

34% 

34% 

20% 

15% 

7% 

7% 

3% 

94% 

90% 

84% 

71% 

86% 

71% 

100% 

100% 

62% 

64% 

75% 

72% 

69% 

89% 

85% 

83% 

91% 

78% 

77% 

91% 

91% 

43% 

64% 

47% 

0% 

33% 

40% 

58% 

63% 

36% 

61% 

21% 

32% 

100% 

42% 

35% 

67% 

27% 

25% 

29% 

19% 

27% 

0% 

51% 

52% 

33% 

18% 

42% 

23% 

33% 

29% 

0% 

29% 

35% 

17% 

51% 

39% 

21% 

16% 

21% 

0% 

20% 

23% 

0% 

17% 

31% 

44% 

31% 

46% 

36% 

26% 

24% 

55% 

49% 

33% 

38% 

53% 

56% 

46% 

39% 

29% 

31% 

27% 

28% 

39 

8% 

34% 

35% 

0% 

7% 

4% 

8% 

9% 

17% 

5% 

6% 

6% 

6% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

15% 

16% 

8% 

3% 

6% 

9% 

12% 

13% 

2% 

9% 

5% 

0% 

4% 

9% 

8% 

6% 

17% 

3% 

4% 

3% 

5% 

3% 

2% 

0% 

5% 

4% 

0% 

1% 

3% 

6% 

5% 

9% 

As an individual in a 
personal capacity (n=2834 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2792) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity 
or on behalf of an 
organisation (n=660 

Of which: 
Academic/research 
institution (n=84) 

Business association (n=70) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=122) 
Consumer organisation 
(n=1) 
Environmental organisation 
(n=55) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) (n=171) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=109) 

Other (n=36) 

Specific stakeholders 
(n=1762 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=784) 

Youth (n=977) 

Of which: 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Scientists/ 
experts/ 
think 
tanks 

EU 
institutions/ 
international 
organisations 

National 
authorities 

Universities
/ Schools 

Civil society 
organisations
/climate 
activists 

Regional 
and/or 
local 
authorities 

“Climate 
Pact” 
ambassador
s in various 
sections of 
the society 

Businesses 

Youth 
organisa-
tions 

Other 

Celebrities/ 
Influencers/
Family and 
friends, 
people I 
know 

91% 

91% 

49% 

53% 

37% 

43% 

56% 

65% 

40% 

35% 

31% 

32% 

28% 

28% 

6% 

5% 

13% 

10% 

3% 

0% 

9% 

8% 

Source of information 

Young professionals (n=884) 

Young students (n=93) 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of 
respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: The order of answers in the top row of the table follows a descending order based on the number of professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options 
in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note 3: The blue colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points above the average, compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for 
‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ 
and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3  Useful channels and tools to raise awareness [Q18] 

When asked about useful channels and tools to raise awareness under the Pact, the most commonly cited channels 

and tools were “social media” (60%), “educational programmes at school” (58%),“traditional media” (49%), 

websites  (34%),  conversations  with  citizens  (32%)  and  local  or  national/regional  events  (32%  and  22%, 

respectively)  (Figure  3-13).  Social  media  was  considered  an  important  channel  of  communication  by  all 

stakeholders, but to a lesser extent by  trade unions (33%  vs 58% for the average organisation).  Compared  to 

other  professionals,  business  associations  favoured  high-level  events  (EU-level,  national,  or  regional)  and 

websites  significantly  more  than  the  average  (51-66%  vs  30-44%)  (Table  3-5).  Meanwhile,  environmental 

organisations showed significantly more support for local events (48% vs 31%) and significantly less support for 

high-level events and websites (11-29% vs 30-44%) than the average organisation. 

“Other”  channels  and  tools  that  were  cited (4%)  include  community  groups  (22%),  educational  programmes 

(suggestions for which included primary schools, universities, and at companies) (14%), a debates/discussions 

between experts (11%) and academic, peer-reviewed journals (11%). 

Figure 3-13 Responses to Question 18 of the questionnaire 

41 

3%, 110 11%, 380 14%, 478 15%, 508 15%, 532 17%, 590 19%, 651 22%, 783 32%, 1 124 32%, 1 131 34%, 1 186 49%, 1 715 58%, 2 020 60%, 2 079  - 500 1 000 1 500 2 000OtherGames/serious games/interactive platforms/appsCreative events/filmsAdvertisingLocal helpdesks for consultancy and practical adviceEU-level eventsGrassroots initiativesNational, regional eventsLocal eventsConversations with citizens on specific policy topics (citizens’ dialogues/assemblies)WebsitesTraditional media (e.g. newspapers, television, radio)Educational programmes at schoolsSocial media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Youtube)[Q18] "What channels and tools would you find useful for awareness raising under the European Climate Pact?" (n=3492) 
 
 
 
 
Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select up to four (4) answers. 13,287 answers were received in total from 3,492 respondents, 
making the average number of responses per respondent 3.8 responses. 

42 

 
 
 
 
Table 3-5 Responses to Question 18 of the questionnaire, split per type of stakeholder 

Social 
media 
(Face-
book, 
Instagram
, Twitter, 
Youtube) 

Educa-
tional 
program-
mmes at 
schools 

Websites 

Tradi-
tional 
media 
(e.g. 
newspap
ers, 
televisio
n, radio) 

National, 
regional 
events 

Conversati
ons with 
citizens 
on 
specific 
policy 
topics 
(citizens’ 
dialogues/
assemblies
) 

Channels and tools 

Local 
events 

EU-level 
events 

Grass-
roots 
initia-
tives 

Local 
helpdesk
s for 
consulta
ncy and 
practical 
advice 

Creative 
events/fi
lms 

Games/ 
serious 
games/ 
interact-
ive 
platforms 
/apps 

Other 

Adverti-
sing 

Total average (n=3492) 

60% 

58% 

34% 

49% 

22% 

32% 

32% 

17% 

19% 

15% 

14% 

11% 

3% 

15% 

As an individual in a 
personal capacity 
(n=2830) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2788) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity 
or on behalf of an 
organisation (n=662) 

Of which: 
Academic/research 
institution (n=84) 
Business association 
(n=70) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=122) 
Consumer organisation 
(n=1) 
Environmental 
organisation (n=56) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) 
(n=172) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=109) 

Other (n=36) 

60% 

60% 

32% 

52% 

20% 

33% 

33% 

14% 

18% 

15% 

14% 

11% 

2% 

16% 

60% 

67% 

61% 

45% 

31% 

52% 

52% 

52% 

20% 

24% 

33% 

24% 

33% 

26% 

14% 

17% 

18% 

17% 

15% 

17% 

14% 

17% 

11% 

12% 

2% 

5% 

17% 

12% 

58% 

47% 

44% 

35% 

33% 

31% 

31% 

30% 

21% 

14% 

10% 

10% 

7% 

6% 

52% 

53% 

60% 

0% 

54% 

66% 

33% 

53% 

64% 

64% 

36% 

43% 

51% 

66% 

56% 

39% 

44% 

30% 

25% 

53% 

36% 

24% 

14% 

25% 

27% 

19% 

30% 

27% 

51% 

37% 

0% 

100% 

0% 

100% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

48% 

29% 

45% 

18% 

45% 

48% 

11% 

44% 

50% 

54% 

36% 

26% 

42% 

50% 

31% 

35% 

42% 

31% 

25% 

31% 

75% 

36% 

19% 

43% 

8% 

30% 

33% 

29% 

33% 

37% 

25% 

25% 

33% 

25% 

44% 

11% 

6% 

16% 

0% 

25% 

33% 

8% 

19% 

31% 

10% 

13% 

16% 

0% 

9% 

17% 

17% 

16% 

17% 

15% 

19% 

2% 

13% 

3% 

7% 

0% 

18% 

11% 

0% 

7% 

19% 

3% 

8% 

0% 

9% 

9% 

0% 

12% 

11% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

2% 

7% 

42% 

6% 

22% 

3% 

6% 

0% 

13% 

8% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Social 
media 
(Face-
book, 
Instagram
, Twitter, 
Youtube) 

Educa-
tional 
program-
mmes at 
schools 

Websites 

Tradi-
tional 
media 
(e.g. 
newspap
ers, 
televisio
n, radio) 

National, 
regional 
events 

Conversati
ons with 
citizens 
on 
specific 
policy 
topics 
(citizens’ 
dialogues/
assemblies
) 

Local 
events 

EU-level 
events 

Grass-
roots 
initia-
tives 

Local 
helpdesk
s for 
consulta
ncy and 
practical 
advice 

Creative 
events/fi
lms 

Games/ 
serious 
games/ 
interact-
ive 
platforms 
/apps 

Other 

Adverti-
sing 

54% 

54% 

23% 

42% 

17% 

28% 

26% 

13% 

16% 

12% 

13% 

11% 

2% 

15% 

59% 

67% 

68% 

65% 

63% 

64% 

63% 

72% 

31% 

23% 

24% 

17% 

46% 

53% 

53% 

53% 

22% 

18% 

18% 

22% 

34% 

34% 

34% 

37% 

29% 

30% 

30% 

35% 

18% 

14% 

13% 

15% 

21% 

18% 

19% 

13% 

15% 

11% 

12% 

8% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

13% 

12% 

12% 

15% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

14% 

22% 

23% 

20% 

Channels and tools 
Specific stakeholders 
(n=1762) 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=786) 

Youth (n=975) 

Of which: 
Young professionals 
(n=883) 

Young students (n=92) 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) exceed 100%. The percentages  indicate the share of 
respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: The order of answers in the top row of the table follows a descending order based on the number of professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options 
in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note 3: The blue colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points above the average, compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for 
‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ 
and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

44 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
3.2.4 

Interesting events [Q19] 

As  shown  in  Figure  3-14,  events  that  were  considered  the  most  interesting  to  attend  by  respondents  were 

“workshops  on  specific  topics  or  initiatives”  (77%),  “participatory  sessions,  think  tank  events”  (59%), 

“networking events” (53%), local meetings (30-42%) and large events (34%). When referring to “other” events 

(5%), the largest share of responses related to online events such as webinars (34%), followed by events with 

policy  makers  (19%),  community  groups  at  the  local  or  regional  level  (16%),  and  activist  events  such  as 

protests, marches, and strikes (11%).  

Table 3-6 shows the spread of responses across different categories of stakeholders. Compared to the average, 

professionals considered “workshops on specific topics” (86%), “participatory sessions, think tank events” (77%), 

and  “networking  events”  (64%)  as  the  most  interesting  events  to  attend  –  the  second  of  the  three  being 

significantly more important for professionals in comparison to the average (77% vs 59%). “Local meetings” were 

considered  significantly  less  interesting  by  professionals  compared  to  the  average  (25%  vs  42%).  This  is 

particularly evident for business associations (7%) and trade unions (8%). Trade unions were also less in favour 

of “participatory sessions, think tank events” (58% vs 77%) and “networking events” (33% vs 64%) compared to 

other professionals. However, they were more in favour of “other” events (50% vs 11%) (e.g. events that gather 

trade unions, workers, employers).  

Figure 3-14 Responses to Question 19 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select up to four (4) answers. 10,563 answers were received in total from 3,476 respondents, 
making the average number of responses per respondent 3 responses. 

45 

4%, 126 5%, 162 30%, 1 057 34%, 1 171 42%, 1 458 53%, 1 851 59%, 2 056 77%, 2 682  - 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500Not interestedOtherTheatre, libraries and museum eventsLarge eventsLocal meetings in my neighbourhood withfamily, friendsNetworking events, opportunities to meet like-minded peopleParticipatory sessions, think tank eventsWorkshops on specific topics or initiatives (Citizens’ dialogues, training sessions)[Q19] "What types of face-to-face events would you find interesting to attend?" (n=3476) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-6 Responses to Question 19 of the questionnaire, split per type of stakeholder 

Workshops 
on specific 
topics or 
initiatives 
(Citizens’ 
dialogues, 
training 
sessions) 

Net-
working 
events, 
opportu-
nities to 
meet like-
minded 
people 

Partici-
patory 
sessions, 
think 
tank 
events 

Local 
meetings 
in my 
neighbo
urhood 
with 
family, 
friends 

Theatre, 
libraries 
and 
museum 
events 

Large 
events 

Not 
interes-
ted 

Other 

Events 

Total average (n=3476) 

77% 

59% 

53% 

34% 

42% 

30% 

5% 

4% 

As an individual in a 
personal capacity (n=2816) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2774) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity 
or on behalf of an 
organisation (n=660) 

Of which: 
Academic/research 
institution (n=83) 

Business association (n=68) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=124) 
Consumer organisation 
(n=1) 
Environmental organisation 
(n=56) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) (n=171) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=109) 

Other (n=36) 

Specific stakeholders 
(n=1752) 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=783) 

Youth (n=969) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=877) 

Young students (n=92) 

75% 

55% 

51% 

32% 

46% 

34% 

75% 

83% 

55% 

60% 

50% 

67% 

32% 

40% 

46% 

43% 

34% 

29% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

4% 

4% 

2% 

86% 

77% 

64% 

40% 

25% 

16% 

11% 

1% 

78% 

91% 

80% 

72% 

90% 

73% 

61% 

75% 

61% 

41% 

49% 

43% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

91% 

89% 

92% 

91% 

83% 

71% 

82% 

58% 

76% 

78% 

54% 

70% 

33% 

68% 

50% 

36% 

37% 

42% 

39% 

39% 

33% 

7% 

22% 

0% 

30% 

27% 

8% 

31% 

25% 

30% 

3% 

10% 

0% 

23% 

19% 

0% 

11% 

17% 

5% 

15% 

8% 

0% 

7% 

13% 

50% 

6% 

22% 

1% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

6% 

67% 

48% 

44% 

32% 

36% 

32% 

3% 

2% 

81% 

76% 

77% 

74% 

62% 

52% 

52% 

53% 

55% 

48% 

48% 

48% 

34% 

43% 

42% 

54% 

42% 

43% 

44% 

38% 

34% 

42% 

41% 

51% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

1% 

3% 

3% 

4% 

1% 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.3  Triggering action: pledges and initiatives 

3.3.1 

Preparedness to pledge [Q20] 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
A huge majority of respondents (91%) expressed some sort of interest in making a commitment under the Pact. 

More  in  detail,  the  largest  share  of  respondents  indicated  “yes,  I  have  already  made  a  climate  action 

commitment  and  would  be  interested  in  building  on  it”  (53%)  (Figure  3-15).  This  share  was  even  more 

significant for environmental organisations (Table 3-7). Overall, 38% of respondents indicated that they would 

be ready to pledge under the Pact subject some conditions (i.e. obtaining some sort of support). Indeed,  the 

second ranking response indicated that respondents are interested in the Pact but require information or non-

financial assistance (22%).20 An additional 17% of respondents expressed that they were considering making a 

commitment. Meanwhile, the lowest ranking response  was “no, I am not interested in engaging in climate action” 

(2%)% (Figure 3-15). Compared to other professionals, trade unions were more unsure of their preparedness to 

make a pledge (25% vs 6%) (Table 3-7).  

On average, of those that responded with “other” (5%), the largest share said they would pledge, but want to 

see binding legislative action (43%), and they would like to see the scope broadened to include environmental 

action (biodiversity, land degradation, waste, etc.) (23%). Additionally, of those that responded with “yes, but 

I  would  need…”  and  then  specified  their  response,  the  majority  stated  that  they  would  need  to  be  more 

informed to make a pledge (39%) and that the international community should also pledge (17%). 

Figure 3-15 Responses to Question 20 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select multiple answers. 4,599 answers were received in total from 3,510 respondents, making 
the average number of responses per respondent 1.3 responses. 

20 The possibility to indicate different conditions under which respondents were interested in pledging concrete climate 
action may have encouraged more support for pledges, compared to what respondents indicated in Question 40, where 
around 80% of respondents stated that they would be interested in taking part in the Pact. 

47 

1%, 32 2%, 55 2%, 75 5%, 178 6%, 199 11%, 383 13%, 447 17%, 602 22%, 784 53%, 1 844 No, I am not interested in engaging in climate action.No, I am not interested in contributing to the Pact.Yes, but I would need …OtherDo not know.Yes, but I would need help to gather wider support andacceptance.Yes, but I would need financial support.Yes, I am already considering making a climate actioncommitment and would be interested in engaging in this…Yes, but I would need information or non-financialsupport to take action (e.g. guidance, good practices).Yes, I have already made a climate action commitmentand would be interested in building on it[Q20] "Would you or your organisation be prepared to pledge concrete climate action under the European Climate Pact?" (n=3510) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-7 Responses to Question 20 of the questionnaire, split per type of stakeholder 

Yes, I have 
already 
made a 
climate 
action 
commitment 
and would 
be 
interested in 
building on it 

Yes, but I 
would need 
financial 
support. 

Yes, but I 
would need 
information 
or non-
financial 
support to 
take action 
(e.g. 
guidance, 
good 
practices). 

Yes, I am 
already 
considering 
making a 
climate action 
commitment 
and would be 
interested in 
engaging in 
this aspect 

Type of information 

Yes, but I would 
need help to 
gather wider 
support and 
acceptance. 

Yes, but I 
would need 
… 

No, I am not 
interested in 
contributing 
to the Pact. 

No, I am not 
interested in 
engaging in 
climate 
action. 

Other 

Do not know. 

Total average (n=3510) 

53% 

13% 

22% 

17% 

11% 

5% 

53% 

53% 

48% 

11% 

10% 

21% 

23% 

23% 

29% 

17% 

17% 

21% 

10% 

4% 

10% 

21% 

4% 

5% 

6% 

6% 

6% 

5% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

0% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

49% 

22% 

19% 

18% 

13% 

10% 

6% 

4% 

1% 

0% 

36% 

41% 

55% 

0% 

64% 

47% 

0% 

59% 

49% 

24% 

26% 

16% 

0% 

16% 

26% 

17% 

21% 

24% 

29% 

24% 

19% 

0% 

14% 

18% 

33% 

13% 

14% 

25% 

21% 

22% 

0% 

16% 

18% 

0% 

13% 

16% 

24% 

7% 

11% 

100% 

13% 

10% 

25% 

14% 

11% 

2% 

23% 

10% 

0% 

5% 

11% 

25% 

5% 

22% 

12% 

10% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

5% 

25% 

8% 

5% 

4% 

6% 

2% 

0% 

2% 

4% 

8% 

2% 

8% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

3% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

3% 

45% 

10% 

20% 

15% 

8% 

3% 

4% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

48 

As an individual in a 
personal capacity (n=2842) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2800) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity or 
on behalf of an organisation 
(n=668) 

Of which: 
Academic/research 
institution (n=84) 

Business association (n=70) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=124) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 
Environmental organisation 
(n=56) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) (n=174) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=110) 

Other (n=37) 

Specific stakeholders 
(n=1768) 

Of which: 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Yes, I have 
already 
made a 
climate 
action 
commitment 
and would 
be 
interested in 
building on it 

50% 

55% 

55% 

63% 

Yes, but I 
would need 
financial 
support. 

16% 

10% 

11% 

3% 

Yes, but I 
would need 
information 
or non-
financial 
support to 
take action 
(e.g. 
guidance, 
good 
practices). 

Yes, I am 
already 
considering 
making a 
climate action 
commitment 
and would be 
interested in 
engaging in 
this aspect 

24% 

23% 

23% 

22% 

19% 

16% 

17% 

11% 

Type of information 

Education sector (n=787) 

Youth (n=981) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=888) 

Young students (n=93) 

Yes, but I would 
need help to 
gather wider 
support and 
acceptance. 

Yes, but I 
would need 
… 

No, I am not 
interested in 
contributing 
to the Pact. 

No, I am not 
interested in 
engaging in 
climate 
action. 

Other 

Do not know. 

12% 

8% 

9% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

0% 

6% 

4% 

4% 

5% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) exceed 100%. The percentages  indicate the share of 
respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: The order of answers in the top row of the table follows a descending order based on the number of professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options 
in their responses(i.e. based on the numbers in the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note 3: The blue colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points above the average, compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for 
‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ 
and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

49 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
3.3.2 

Advantages of making a pledge [Q21] 

When asked about the main advantages of making a pledge, the most common response was “lead by example, 

motivate others around me to do the same” (63%). This was followed by “motivation to take action by having 

a goal” (48%), “being part of a community of pledgers, sharing experience” (44%), “accountability” (31%) and 

“recognition for my actions” (24%). The lowest ranking response, aside from “other” (6%), was “more business 

opportunities as a result of commitments to sustainability” (16%) (Figure 3-16). However, this was not the case 

for companies and businesses, of which 44% considered that their opportunities would increase as a result of 

commitments to sustainability (Table 3-8). On average, of those that responded “other” (6%), common responses 

outlined  being  able  to  contribute  to  fighting  climate  change  (42%),  and  to  do  right  by  future  generations 

(21%). 

Figure 3-16 Responses to Question 21 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select multiple answers. 7,365 answers were received in total from 3,191 respondents, making 
the average number of responses per respondent 2.3 responses. 

Table 3-8 Responses to Question 21 of the questionnaire, split per type of stakeholder 

Being part 
of a 
community 
of 
pledgers, 
connecting 
with 
others, 
sharing 
experience 

Lead by 
example, 
motivate 
others 
around me 
to do the 
same 

Motivation 
to take 
action by 
having a 
goal 

Accountabi
lity for my 
actions by 
making my 
pledge 
public 

Recogni-
tion for my 
actions by 
being part 
of the Pact 

More 
business 
opportuniti
es as a 
result of 
commit-
ments to 
sustain-
ability 

Other 

63% 

44% 

48% 

31% 

24% 

16% 

6% 

64% 

43% 

49% 

29% 

21% 

13% 

5% 

64% 

53% 

43% 

50% 

49% 

45% 

29% 

38% 

21% 

23% 

13% 

18% 

5% 

10% 

59% 

49% 

45% 

38% 

33% 

25% 

9% 

50 

Advantages of making a 
pledge 

Total average (n=3191) 

As an individual in a 
personal capacity 
(n=2590) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2550) 

Non-EU citizen (n=40) 

In a professional 
capacity or on behalf of 
an organisation (n=601) 

6%, 189 16%, 495 24%, 755 31%, 976 44%, 1 400 48%, 1 531 63%, 2 019 OtherMore business opportunities as a result of commitments tosustainabilityRecognition for my actions by being part of the PactAccountability for my actions by making my pledge publicBeing part of a community of pledgers, connecting with others,sharing experienceMotivation to take action by having a goalLead by example, motivate others around me to do the same[Q21] "What would you see as the main advantages of making a pledge?" (n=3191) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Being part 
of a 
community 
of 
pledgers, 
connecting 
with 
others, 
sharing 
experience 

Lead by 
example, 
motivate 
others 
around me 
to do the 
same 

Motivation 
to take 
action by 
having a 
goal 

Accountabi
lity for my 
actions by 
making my 
pledge 
public 

Recogni-
tion for my 
actions by 
being part 
of the Pact 

More 
business 
opportuniti
es as a 
result of 
commit-
ments to 
sustain-
ability 

Other 

54% 

43% 

55% 

0% 

63% 

69% 

57% 

60% 

63% 
54% 

54% 

63% 

65% 

65% 

67% 

51% 

41% 

45% 

100% 

50% 

55% 

43% 

42% 

60% 
51% 

37% 

49% 

40% 

40% 

38% 

59% 

36% 

31% 

0% 

48% 

48% 

57% 

52% 

47% 
59% 

45% 

53% 

56% 

56% 

50% 

34% 

34% 

46% 

0% 

41% 

31% 

29% 

42% 

40% 
34% 

29% 

33% 

36% 

37% 

31% 

24% 

39% 

29% 

0% 

37% 

37% 

43% 

32% 

40% 
24% 

21% 

29% 

23% 

22% 

30% 

12% 

34% 

44% 

0% 

15% 

19% 

14% 

22% 

17% 
12% 

14% 

18% 

16% 

16% 

19% 

4% 

11% 

8% 

0% 

7% 

11% 

14% 

11% 

17% 
4% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

1% 

Advantages of making a 
pledge 

Of which: 
Academic/research 
institution (n=74) 
Business association 
(n=61) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=119) 
Consumer organisation 
(n=1) 
Environmental 
organisation (n=54) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) 
(n=159) 

Trade union (n=7) 

Public authority (n=96) 

Other (n=30) 

Specific stakeholders 
(n=1657) 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=722) 

Youth (n=916) 

Of which: 
Young professionals 
(n=830) 

Young students (n=86) 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.3.3  Themes [Q22] 

Question 22 asked, “What themes could you see your pledge addressing?”, and 3,459 people responded. The most 

commonly selected theme (66%) was “circular economy” (n=2,297), followed by “transport, mobility” (56%, 

n=1,951). For the following topics, the response rates were relatively even (47-55%): “developing knowledge 

and  skills 

for 

the 

transition 

to  a  climate-neutral  society” 

(54%,  n=1,877),  “food” 

(54%), 

“transformation/behavioural  change”  (52%),  “renewable  energy”  (51%),  “green  areas”  (47%)  and  “energy 

efficiency”  (47%),  except  for  “water  management”  (26%,  n=912)  (Figure  3-17).  When  looking  at  various 

stakeholders,  some  answers  diverge  (see  Table  3-8).  For  example,  professionals  were  less  interested  in 

addressing  the  theme  of  local  and  sustainably  produced  food  than  the  average  (32%  vs  54%).  Furthermore, 

amongst professionals, trade unions generally agreed less with most of the options provided (9-36% vs 17-58% 

across all professionals). NGOs agreed less with “energy efficiency” than the average organisation (35% vs 51%), 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
while  the  opposite  is  true  for  public  authorities  (69%  vs  51%).  Environmental  organisations  supported 

biodiversity- and food-related themes to a higher extent than the average organisation (53-60% vs 32-25%). The 

latter also holds true for the youth (67% vs 32%). 

On average, of those that answered “other” (10%), many reiterated themes already listed in the question. The 

most  common  themes  given  by  respondents  were  climate-friendly  transportation  and  mobility  (26%), 

sustainable business and  a green economy (20%), and  climate education, training, and  knowledge sharing 

(17%).  

Figure 3-17 Responses to Question 22 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note  2:  Respondents  could  select  multiple  answers.  16,105  answers  were  received  in  total  from  3,459  respondents, 
making the average number of responses per respondent 4.7 responses. 

52 

10%, 33626%, 91247%, 163847%, 164051%, 177452%, 181354%, 186754%, 187756%, 195166%, 2297OtherWater managementEnergy efficiency (e.g. buying products with the most efficientenergy label, insulating buildings)Increasing green and biodiverse areas, afforestationRenewable energy usage/generation (e.g. installing solarpanels, heat pumps, procuring renewable energy)Business/organisational transformation (for organisation)/Wide-ranging change in personal behaviour (for individual: –e.g. daily consumption-changing food or household habits-)Local/sustainably produced/plant-based foodDeveloping knowledge and skills for the transition to a climate-neutral societyTransport, mobilityCircular economy: less waste (e.g. through less packaging oreco-design), re-use, recycling, waste management[Q22] "What themes could you see your pledge addressing?" (n=3459) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-9 Responses to Question 22 of the questionnaire, split per stakeholder type 

Circular 
economy: less 
waste (e.g. 
through less 
packaging or 
eco-design), 
re-use, 
recycling, 
waste 
management 

Developing 
knowledge 
and skills for 
the transition 
to a climate-
neutral 
society 

Renewable 
energy 
usage/generati
on (e.g. 
installing solar 
panels, heat 
pumps, 
procuring 
renewable 
energy) 

Energy 
efficiency 
(e.g. buying 
products with 
the most 
efficient 
energy label, 
insulating 
buildings) 

Transport, 
mobility 

Business/ 
organisational 
transformation 
(for organisation)/ 
Wide-ranging 
change in personal 
behaviour (for 
individual: –e.g. 
daily 
consumption- 
changing food or 
household habits-) 

Increasing 
green and 
biodiverse 
areas, 
afforestation 

Local/ 
sustainably 
produced/ 
plant-based 
food 

Water 
management  Other 

Themes 

Total average (n=3459) 

66% 

54% 

51% 

47% 

56% 

52% 

47% 

54% 

26% 

10% 

As an individual in a personal 
capacity (n=2804) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2762) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity or on 
behalf of an organisation (n=655) 

Of which: 
Academic/research institution 
(n=84) 

Business association (n=69) 
Company/business organisation 
(n=124) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 

Environmental organisation (n=55) 
Non-governmental organisation 
(NGO) (n=170) 

Trade union (n=11) 

Public authority (n=108) 

Other (n=33) 

Specific stakeholders (n=1750) 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=780) 

Youth (n=967) 

68% 

69% 

60% 

54% 

54% 

45% 

51% 

51% 

48% 

47% 

58% 

47% 

40% 

58% 

31% 

53% 

53% 

52% 

50% 

51% 

31% 

59% 

59% 

36% 

26% 

26% 

29% 

8% 

8% 

19% 

58% 

56% 

52% 

51% 

49% 

49% 

35% 

32% 

27% 

17% 

56% 

51% 

63% 

0% 

65% 

49% 

36% 

69% 

64% 

60% 

68% 

75% 

55% 

32% 

48% 

0% 

62% 

65% 

45% 

57% 

76% 

51% 

60% 

61% 

49% 

46% 

61% 

0% 

58% 

41% 

36% 

60% 

61% 

43% 

50% 

52% 

50% 

52% 

56% 

0% 

49% 

35% 

36% 

69% 

52% 

39% 

35% 

60% 

100% 

55% 

44% 

27% 

61% 

55% 

40% 

51% 

54% 

64% 

45% 

48% 

53 

43% 

38% 

54% 

0% 

51% 

52% 

18% 

53% 

55% 

47% 

52% 

57% 

36% 

19% 

31% 

0% 

60% 

28% 

18% 

46% 

39% 

41% 

46% 

51% 

37% 

19% 

21% 

0% 

53% 

34% 

18% 

40% 

27% 

51% 

54% 

67% 

31% 

25% 

27% 

0% 

27% 

18% 

9% 

42% 

33% 

22% 

26% 

26% 

12% 

20% 

16% 

0% 

13% 

18% 

36% 

18% 

24% 

7% 

10% 

6% 

 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Circular 
economy: less 
waste (e.g. 
through less 
packaging or 
eco-design), 
re-use, 
recycling, 
waste 
management 

Developing 
knowledge 
and skills for 
the transition 
to a climate-
neutral 
society 

Renewable 
energy 
usage/generati
on (e.g. 
installing solar 
panels, heat 
pumps, 
procuring 
renewable 
energy) 

Energy 
efficiency 
(e.g. buying 
products with 
the most 
efficient 
energy label, 
insulating 
buildings) 

Transport, 
mobility 

Business/ 
organisational 
transformation 
(for organisation)/ 
Wide-ranging 
change in personal 
behaviour (for 
individual: –e.g. 
daily 
consumption- 
changing food or 
household habits-) 

Increasing 
green and 
biodiverse 
areas, 
afforestation 

Local/ 
sustainably 
produced/ 
plant-based 
food 

Water 
management  Other 

Themes 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=875) 

Young students (n=92) 

74% 

79% 

60% 

74% 

51% 

64% 

47% 

55% 

64% 

72% 

57% 

59% 

51% 

49% 

67% 

67% 

26% 

29% 

6% 

4% 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) exceed 100%. The percentages  indicate the share of 
respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: The order of answers in the top row of the table follows a descending order based on the number of professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options 
in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note 3: The blue colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points above the average, compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for 
‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ 
and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.4 

Areas of participation [Q23] 

Question 23 asked, “As explained in the introductory section, initially, the European Climate Pact could offer 

targeted support (e.g., awareness-raising, advice, possibly funding) in three areas: energy efficiency in buildings, 

low-carbon mobility in cities, as well as planting trees and creating urban green areas. Further areas could be 

added later. In which of these areas would you like to participate?”. The leading area of participation favoured 

by  respondents  was  “planting  trees/green  urban  areas”  (66%),  followed  by  “low-carbon  mobility  in  cities” 

(64%)  (Figure  3-18).  “Energy  efficiency  in  buildings”  (40%)  was  selected  with  around  25  percentage  points 

behind. However, professionals were more in favour of energy efficiency than individuals (51% vs 38%) (Table 

3-10).  This  particularly  holds  true  for  public  authorities,  who  strongly  supported  energy  efficiency  (79%). 

Compared to the average, professionals were also significantly less in favour of planting trees than the average 

(49% vs 66%), but more in favour of other areas of participation (38% vs 22%). On average, 22% of respondents 

selected  “other”  (n=758).  Of  those  that  submitted  supplemental  written  responses,  common  areas  of 

participation  that  were  mentioned  were  education  and  training  (20%),  climate  friendly  business  and  green 

economy (17%), low-carbon/renewable energy generation (14%) and sustainable agriculture (14%).  

Figure 3-18 Responses to Question 23 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select multiple answers. 6,736 answers were received in total from 3,453 respondents, making 
the average number of responses per respondent 2 responses. 

Table 3-10 Responses to Question 23 of the questionnaire, split per stakeholder type 

Low-carbon 
mobility in 
cities 

Energy 
efficiency in 
buildings 

Planting trees/ 
green urban 
areas 

Other 

None 
of the 
above 

Areas of participation 

Total average (n=3453) 

As an individual in a personal capacity (n=2802) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2760) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity or on behalf of an 
organisation (n=651) 

Of which: 

Academic/research institution (n=84) 

Business association (n=64) 

Company/business organisation (n=123) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 

Environmental organisation (n=56) 

64% 

66% 

66% 

50% 

55% 

46% 

33% 

61% 

100% 

66% 

55 

40% 

38% 

38% 

36% 

51% 

48% 

45% 

49% 

0% 

38% 

66% 

22% 

3% 

70% 

18% 

3% 

70% 

67% 

18% 

31% 

3% 

7% 

49% 

38% 

4% 

55% 

20% 

40% 

0% 

71% 

25% 

48% 

34% 

0% 

41% 

4% 

8% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

3%, 114 22%, 758 40%, 1 384 64%, 2 204 66%, 2 276 None of the aboveOtherEnergy efficiency inbuildingsLow-carbon mobility incitiesPlanting trees/greenurban areas[Q23] Areas of participation (n=3453) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
Areas of participation 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (n=169) 

Trade union (n=10) 

Public authority (n=108) 

Other (n=36) 

Specific stakeholders (n=1747) 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=774) 

Youth (n=968) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=877) 

Young students (n=91) 

Low-carbon 
mobility in 
cities 

Energy 
efficiency in 
buildings 

Planting trees/ 
green urban 
areas 

Other 

None 
of the 
above 

53% 

60% 

71% 

42% 

57% 

61% 

72% 

71% 

77% 

47% 

50% 

79% 

39% 

30% 

39% 

33% 

33% 

29% 

50% 

20% 

68% 

36% 

44% 

70% 

31% 

50% 

6% 

0% 

1% 

11% 

62% 

16% 

2% 

71% 

76% 

75% 

81% 

23% 

14% 

15% 

9% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.4  Working together: platforms 

3.4.1  What could be useful under the platform [Q24] 

When asked what they would find useful under the platform, 71% of respondents voted for “listing of relevant 

events”  and  67%  for  “online  events”.  “Links  to  connect  with  like-minded  people  and  organisations”  and 

“links to other relevant platforms and initiatives” received 58% and 55% of the share of responses, respectively 

(Figure  3-19).  The  majority  of  “other”  responses  (18%)  included  a  repository  or  knowledge  centre  for 

information, best practices, and exemplary projects (65%), and a listing of relevant projects to participate 

in (20%). Online events were considered the most useful for professionals, with 73% making this selection, on 

average (Table 3-11). However, trade unions showed significantly less support for such events (50% vs 73%), as 

well as for “links to other relevant platforms and initiatives” (33% vs 58%).  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-19 Responses to Question 24 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select multiple answers. 9,426 answers were received in total from 3,510 respondents, making 
the average number of responses per respondent 2.7 responses. 

Table 3-11 Responses to Question 24 of the questionnaire, split per stakeholder type 

Useful items under the 
platform 

Total average (n=3510) 

As an individual in a personal 
capacity (n=2842) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2800) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity or 
on behalf of an organisation 
(n=668) 

Of which: 
Academic/research institution 
(n=84) 

Business association (n=70) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=124) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 
Environmental organisation 
(n=56) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) (n=174) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=110) 

Other (n=37) 

Specific stakeholders 
(n=1768) 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=787) 

Youth (n=981) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=888) 

Online events (e.g. 
webstreamed events, 
webinars, Massive Open 
Online Courses 
(MOOCs), trainings) 

Listing of 
relevant 
events (in my 
country/field 
of work) 

Links to 
connect with 
like-minded 
people and 
organisations 

Links to other 
relevant 
platforms and 
initiatives 

Other 

67% 

71% 

58% 

55% 

18% 

66% 

66% 

69% 

73% 

73% 

76% 

57% 

57% 

74% 

54% 

17% 

53% 

69% 

17% 

14% 

73% 

66% 

60% 

58% 

21% 

65% 

64% 

73% 

100% 

68% 

63% 

58% 

65% 

65% 

64% 

72% 

78% 

78% 

76% 

69% 

70% 

100% 

73% 

75% 

50% 

76% 

65% 

57% 

68% 

66% 

65% 

57 

62% 

44% 

65% 

100% 

61% 

64% 

58% 

62% 

43% 

50% 

62% 

56% 

55% 

51% 

64% 

57% 

100% 

7% 

27% 

13% 

0% 

50% 

30% 

61% 

33% 

61% 

65% 

25% 

50% 

18% 

41% 

47% 

16% 

55% 

57% 

17% 

20% 

57% 

19% 

18%, 619 55%, 1 914 58%, 2 032 67%, 2 352 71%, 2 509 OtherLinks to other relevant platforms and initiativesLinks to connect with like-minded people andorganisationsOnline events (e.g. webstreamed events,webinars, Massive Open Online Courses(MOOCs), trainings)Listing of relevant events (in my country/fieldof work)[Q24] "What would you find useful under this platform?" (n=3510) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Useful items under the 
platform 

Young students (n=93) 

Online events (e.g. 
webstreamed events, 
webinars, Massive Open 
Online Courses 
(MOOCs), trainings) 

Listing of 
relevant 
events (in my 
country/field 
of work) 

Links to 
connect with 
like-minded 
people and 
organisations 

Links to other 
relevant 
platforms and 
initiatives 

Other 

73% 

76% 

63% 

61% 

23% 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.4.2  What could improve collaboration between individuals or organisations [Q25] 

When asked what would be useful to improve collaboration between individuals or organisations, a majority of 

respondents  opted  for  support    (e.g.  funding,  capacity-building)  )  (62%),  support  for  local  initiatives  (57%) 

(57%)and “trainings on climate change problems and collaborative solutions” (54%) (Figure 3-20). Three other 

options were selected by a minority but still significant part of the respondents, i.e.: “opportunities for contacts 

and exchange” (48%), “matchmaking” (43%) and “harmonised reporting and monitoring” (33%). The majority 

of “other” responses (n=221) included education and training (37%), and collaboration between citizens and 

policy makers (35%). On average, organisations considered support such as funding and capacity-building the 

most important means to improving collaboration (76% vs 59% amongst individuals) and considered support for 

local  initiatives  less  important  (42%  compared  to  60%  amongst  individuals)  (Table  3-12).  Support  for  local 

initiatives was prioritised by an even lower share of trade unions (17%) and business associations (14%). The 

latter indicated significantly more encouragement for harmonised reporting and monitoring (59%).  

Figure 3-20 Responses to Question 25 of the questionnaire 

58 

6%, 221 33%, 1 153 43%, 1 501 48%, 1 673 54%, 1 895 57%, 1 995 62%, 2 189 OtherHarmonised reporting and monitoring for climateaction initiatives‘Matchmaking’ between organisations or initiativesOpportunities for online/face-to-face contactsand exchange (networking)Trainings on climate change problems andcollaborative solutionsSupport for grassroots and other relevantinitiatives/activists in local communitiesSupport for collaboration initiatives and projects(e.g. access to funding, capacity building, etc.)[Q25] "What do you consider as useful for more collaboration between individuals or organisations?" (n=3510) 
 
 
 
 
 
Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could up to four (4) answers. 10,627 answers were received in total from 3,510 respondents, making 
the average number of responses per respondent 3 responses. 

Table 3-12 Responses to Question 25 of the questionnaire, split per stakeholder type 

Support for 
collaboratio
n initiatives 
and 
projects 
(e.g. access 
to funding, 
capacity 
building, 
etc.) 

Opportuni
ties for 
online/fac
e-to-face 
contacts 
and 
exchange 
(network-
ing) 

Other 

‘Match-
making’ 
between 
organisa-
tions or 
initiatives 

Trainings 
on climate 
change 
problems 
and 
collabora-
tive 
solutions 

Harmonise
d reporting 
and 
monitoring 
for climate 
action 
initiatives 

Support for 
grassroots 
and other 
relevant 
initiatives/
activists in 
local 
communi-
ties 

Useful items for more 
collaboration 

Total average (n=3510) 

62% 

48% 

54% 

43% 

57% 

33% 

6% 

As an individual in a 
personal capacity 
(n=2842) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2800) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional 
capacity or on behalf 
of an organisation 
(n=668) 

Of which: 
Academic/research 
institution (n=84) 
Business association 
(n=70) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=124) 
Consumer organisation 
(n=1) 
Environmental 
organisation (n=56) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) 
(n=174) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=110) 

Other (n=37) 

Specific stakeholders 
(n=1768) 

Of which: 
Education sector 
(n=787) 

Youth (n=981) 

Of which: 
Young professionals 
(n=888) 

Young students (n=93) 

59% 

47% 

55% 

41% 

60% 

32% 

59% 

69% 

47% 

33% 

55% 

57% 

41% 

43% 

60% 

64% 

32% 

43% 

6% 

6% 

10% 

76% 

52% 

50% 

49% 

42% 

36% 

9% 

75% 

76% 

69% 

50% 

41% 

56% 

100% 

100% 

71% 

61% 

80% 

42% 

82% 

78% 

52% 

42% 

55% 

41% 

64% 

36% 

44% 

0% 

54% 

50% 

58% 

48% 

54% 

43% 

57% 

52% 

100% 

39% 

53% 

33% 

48% 

46% 

35% 

14% 

44% 

100% 

52% 

53% 

17% 

41% 

46% 

35% 

59% 

35% 

0% 

34% 

29% 

25% 

35% 

41% 

6% 

16% 

5% 

0% 

7% 

9% 

17% 

13% 

14% 

54% 

42% 

52% 

36% 

51% 

27% 

4% 

66% 

62% 

61% 

62% 

51% 

46% 

45% 

54% 

61% 

63% 

63% 

61% 

42% 

42% 

44% 

28% 

60% 

60% 

60% 

61% 

30% 

34% 

34% 

33% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

5% 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.4.3 

Best ways of promoting and supporting existing initiatives [Q26] 

When  asked  about  the  best  way  to  promote  and  support  existing  initiatives  and  link  them  more  closely  with 

climate action under the European Green Deal, a large share of respondents (76% and 66%, respectively) stated 

“provide material support” and create a more favourable environment (cultural, political, or other). Around 

half of respondents also selected “establish connections with specific policy areas and processes, providing 

spaces  for  consultation  and  co-deliberation”  (54%),  “facilitate  bottom-up  networking  among  institutions, 

organisations  or  individual  citizens  themselves”  (50%)  and  “provide  non-material  support  (e.g.  recognition, 

praise, greater visibility, etc.)” (48%) (Figure 3-21). Of those that responded “other” (n=236) there was not broad 

consensus for any one option; however, common responses included providing funding to project or initiatives 

(29%), education and training on climate action (22%), and accessible information and data (13%). Generally, 

the distribution of answers was not significantly different across different types of stakeholders, but trade unions 

agreed less with the provision of “material support” and “connections with specific policy areas and processes” 

than the average organisation (58% and 33%, respectively, compared to 81% and 62%, respectively) (Table 3-13).  

Figure 3-21 Responses to Question 26 of the questionnaire 

60 

7%, 236 48%, 1 671 50%, 1 729 54%, 1 855 66%, 2 289 76%, 2 618 OtherProvide non-material support (e.g. recognition,praise, greater visibility, etc.)Facilitate bottom-up networking among institutions,organisations or individual citizens themselvesEstablish connections with specific policy areas andprocesses, providing spaces for consultation and co-deliberationCreate a more favourable environment for theactivities of these initiatives, including by removingcultural, political, governance or other obstaclesProvide material support (e.g. financing, capacitybuilding, etc.)[Q26] "In your view, what is the best way to promote and support these kinds of initiatives and to link them more closely with climate action under the European Green Deal?" (n=3462) 
 
 
 
 
 
Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note  2:  Respondents  could  select  multiple  answers.  10,398  answers  were  received  in  total  from  3,462  respondents, 
making the average number of responses per respondent 3 responses. 

Table 3-13 Responses to Question 26 of the questionnaire, split per type of stakeholder 

Establish 
connections 
with specific 
policy areas 
and processes, 
providing 
spaces for 
consultation 
and co-
deliberation 

Provide 
material 
support 
(e.g. 
financing, 
capacity 
building, 
etc.) 

Other 

Create a more 
favourable 
environment for 
the activities of 
these 
initiatives, 
including by 
removing 
cultural, 
political, 
governance or 
other obstacles 

Facilitate 
bottom-up 
networkin
g among 
institution
s, 
organisatio
ns or 
individual 
citizens 
themselve
s 

Provide 
non-
material 
support 
(e.g. 
recognitio
n, praise, 
greater 
visibility, 
etc.) 

76% 

74% 

74% 

74% 

54% 

70% 

66% 

50% 

48% 

52% 

72% 

69% 

50% 

49% 

51% 

64% 

72% 

74% 

69% 

62% 

50% 

55% 

49% 

45% 

81% 

62% 

60% 

54% 

51% 

47% 

71% 

77% 

78% 

100% 

84% 

86% 

58% 

86% 

85% 
71% 
77% 

77% 

80% 

80% 

75% 

73% 

74% 

58% 

100% 

47% 

61% 

33% 

64% 

59% 
73% 
74% 

53% 

52% 

52% 

56% 

56% 

54% 

59% 

0% 

71% 

63% 

58% 

61% 

50% 
56% 
54% 

71% 

74% 

74% 

76% 

52% 

48% 

57% 

0% 

65% 

54% 

42% 

58% 

41% 
52% 
48% 

68% 

72% 

72% 

75% 

58% 

41% 

38% 

100% 

49% 

61% 

42% 

54% 

53% 
58% 
41% 

57% 

48% 

49% 

44% 

33% 

45% 

47% 

100% 

49% 

55% 

58% 

42% 

47% 
33% 
45% 

48% 

55% 

55% 

56% 

Best way to promote and 
support initiatives 

Total average (n=3462) 

As an individual in a personal 
capacity (n=2805) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2763) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity or 
on behalf of an organisation 
(n=657) 

Of which: 
Academic/research institution 
(n=84) 

Business association (n=69) 
Company/business organisation 
(n=122) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 
Environmental organisation 
(n=55) 
Non-governmental organisation 
(NGO) (n=171) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=109) 

Other (n=34) 

Specific stakeholders (n=1751) 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=782) 

Youth (n=966) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=875) 

Young students (n=91) 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.5  Ideas and suggestions for further development 

3.5.1  How the Climate Pact can best complement or scale up existing initiatives and add value [Q27] 

Question  27  asked  respondents,  “How  do  you  believe  the  Pact  can  best  complement  or  scale-up  existing 

initiatives  and  add  value?”.  The  question  was  in  an  open  format,  respondents  were  asked  to  provide  written 

answers, and the response was mandatory. In total, 3,510 responded, but 347 provided void answers. The latter 

were, therefore, excluded from the analysis (Figure 3-22). As there were no predefined options for answering, 

the consensus was quite broad with many options given and no one single response taking the majority share. 

The  most  frequently  mentioned  response  was  for  the  Pact  to  provide  financial  incentives/support  (18%). 

Respondents also indicated that the Pact should promote climate-friendly mobility (15%), focus on research 

and  development  (15%),  and  coordinate  and  promote  existing  initiatives  (15%).  Education  and  training  on 

climate-related  issues  (13%)  was  also  frequently  mentioned  in  the  written  responses,  and  was  particularly 

supported by trade unions (33% vs 15% for the average organisation) (Table 3-14). These represented the top five 

themes by a significant margin, and have been analysed at stakeholder level (Table 3-14). 

62 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3-22 Responses to Question 27 of the questionnaire 

63 

0%, 90%, 101%, 351%, 361%, 361%, 381%, 441%, 452%, 652%, 733%, 963%, 1014%, 1244%, 1265%, 1555%, 1605%, 1609%, 2759%, 28613%, 41815%, 47715%, 47815%, 47918%, 574Mainstream climate changeJust Transition MechanismFacilitate/support new intitiativesImprove transparency/accountabilityFocus on future generationsProvide a forum to share best practicesPromote the urgency to act on climate changeAllow for citizens to contribute to climate policyReduce the power of industry lobbiesFacilitate bottom-up action on climate changeCreate synergies between EU and regional/localactionEncourage negative emission projects (afforestation,carbon capture, etc.)Integrate climate and biodiveristyCreate legally binding action for climateChallenge carbon intensive foodproduction/consumptionDisseminate informationReduce pollutionPromote renewable energyFacilitate networking opportunitiesEducation/training on climate related issuesCoordinate/promote existing initiativesEncourage  research and developmentPromote climate friendly mobility/transportationoptionsProvide financial incentives/support[Q27] "How do you believe the Pact can best complement or scale-up existing initiatives and add value?" (n=3163)  
 
 
Note: This figure was created based on themes that were identified using the ATLAS.ti software. The categories in the 
figure do not represent pre-defined options that were provided to respondents in the questionnaire. 

Table 3-14 Responses to Question 27 of the questionnaire, split per stakeholder type 

Education/ 
training on 
climate 
related issues 

Coordinate/ 
promote 
existing 
initiatives 

Provide 
Financial 
incentives/ 
support 

Promote 
climate friendly 
mobility/ 
transportation 
options 

Focus on 
research and 
development 

12% 

15% 

14% 

12% 

13% 

Type of information 
Total average 
(n=3163) 

As an individual in a 
personal capacity 
(n=2549) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2511) 

Non-EU citizen (n=38) 

In a professional 
capacity or on behalf 
of an organisation 
(n=614) 
Of which: 
Academic/research 
institution (n=74) 
Business association 
(n=60) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=117) 
Consumer 
organisation (n=1) 
Environmental 
organisation (n=53) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) 
(n=165) 

Trade union (n=9) 
Public authority 
(n=101) 

Other (n=34) 

Specific stakeholders 
(n=1340) 
Of which: 
Education sector 
(n=721) 

Youth (n=858) 
Of which: 
Young professionals 
(n=775) 

Young students (n=83) 

15% 

5% 

8% 

22% 

7% 

4% 

0% 

13% 

7% 

0% 

4% 

3% 

11% 

11% 

5% 

15% 

15% 

16% 

14% 

14% 

5% 

12% 

14% 

12% 

16% 

15% 

15% 

12% 

12% 

24% 

10% 

6% 

0% 

11% 

13% 

33% 

23% 

26% 

11% 

8% 

10% 

100% 

11% 

21% 

11% 

14% 

24% 

11% 

3% 

15% 

0% 

15% 

12% 

0% 

13% 

18% 

15% 

10% 

14% 

0% 

4% 

10% 

11% 

16% 

12% 

14% 

17% 

14% 

12% 

16% 

18% 

10% 

10% 

17% 

15% 

20% 

20% 

22% 

11% 

16% 

15% 

23% 

14% 

11% 

11% 

11% 

13% 

18% 

17% 

25% 

Note  1:  Responses  may  cover  multiple  themes,  so  the  percentages  indicated  in  the  table  above  indicate  the  share  of 
respondents having approached each of the given themes in their open responses (out of total respondents). To calculate 
total respondents, respondents that did not provide an answer to the question were excluded.  

Note 2: Only the most important themes have been included in the table, selected based upon the responses illustrated 
in Figure 3-22. 

Note  3:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  4:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.5.2  Most important characteristics of the Climate Pact [Q28] 

Question 28 of the questionnaire asked, “What would be the most important characteristics of the Climate Pact 

for you?”. Responses were somewhat spread evenly across the four characteristics provided, with  “ambition” 

and  “transparency”  in  the  lead  (62%  each),  followed  by  “transparency”  (62%),  “participation”  (52%),  and, 

finally,  “inclusiveness”  (46%,  n=1,614)  (Figure  3-31).  Non-EU  nationals  showed  the  strongest  support  for 

“participation”  (67%  compared  to  51%  for  individuals)  and  trade  unions  showed  higher  support  than  other 

organisations for “other” characteristics (42% vs 18%) (Table 3-15). In total, there were 487 “other” responses 

(14%),  with  a  wide  distribution  of  responses,  including  collaborative  (17%),  action/results-oriented  (16%), 

pragmatic (15%), and just (12%). 

Figure 3-23 Responses to Question 28 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select multiple answers. 8,310 answers were received in total from 3,510 respondents, making 
the average number of responses per respondent 2.4 responses. 

Table 3-15 Responses to Question 28 of the questionnaire, split per type of stakeholder 

Advantages of making a pledge 

Participation 

Ambition 

Transparency 

Inclusiveness 

Other 

Total average (n=3510) 

52% 

62% 

62% 

46% 

14% 

As an individual in a personal 
capacity (n=2842) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2800) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity or on 
behalf of an organisation (n=668) 

Of which: 

Academic/research institution (n=84) 

Business association (n=70) 
Company/business organisation 
(n=124) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 

Environmental organisation (n=56) 
Non-governmental organisation (NGO) 
(n=174) 

Trade union (n=12) 

51% 

64% 

50% 

67% 

64% 

57% 

59% 

56% 

46% 

41% 

65% 

100% 

64% 

59% 

58% 

67% 

56% 

55% 

100% 

54% 

64% 

58% 

65 

64% 

64% 

52% 

56% 

42% 

56% 

66% 

100% 

63% 

56% 

50% 

45% 

13% 

45% 

50% 

13% 

12% 

51% 

18% 

40% 

41% 

46% 

100% 

50% 

57% 

58% 

10% 

21% 

10% 

0% 

27% 

21% 

42% 

14%, 487 46%, 1 614 52%, 1 835 62%, 2 186 62%, 2 188 OtherInclusivenessParticipationTransparencyAmbition[Q28] "What would be the most important characteristics of the Climate Pact for you?" (n=3510) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
Advantages of making a pledge 

Participation 

Ambition 

Transparency 

Inclusiveness 

Other 

Public authority (n=110) 

Other (n=37) 

57% 

57% 

54% 

49% 

Specific stakeholders (n=1768) 

45% 

54% 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=787) 

Youth (n=981) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=888) 

Young students (n=93) 

56% 

50% 

50% 

55% 

59% 

67% 

67% 

70% 

51% 

54% 

54% 

60% 

66% 

65% 

70% 

56% 

59% 

17% 

19% 

41% 

11% 

50% 

46% 

46% 

53% 

14% 

12% 

11% 

18% 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.5.3 

Initiatives that would potentially be interested in joining the Climate Pact [Q29] 

Question  29  asked,  “If  you  are  aware  of  or  involved  in  any  initiatives  that  could  be  potentially  interested  in 

joining  the  Pact,  please  provide  their  name  and  a  brief  description  below,  including  web  links  and  contact 

information where applicable (maximum two initiatives)?”. 1,576 responded, with 72 providing no constructive 

response, such as “I don’t know” and “N/A”.  

Of the initiatives provided, Scientists for Future (30%) had the largest number of responses, followed by Fridays 

for Future (26%) (Figure 3-24). Parents for Future (13%) and Extinction Rebellion (7%) received fewer responses, 

but made up the second half of the top four listed initiatives.  Beyond these four initiatives, respondents also 

referenced Natagora, Greenpeace, German Zero, Students for future, platform Aachen sustainability, Scientix, 

Generation  Climate  Europe,  The  Shift  Project,  Leuven2030,  Common  Welfare  Economy,  Association  for  the 

Environment and Nature, Covenant of Mayors, Air Café, Friends of the Earth, Solar Power Europe, Green Marine 

shipping  label,  Solar  Impulse  Foundation,  GreenDeal4Youth,  Changing  Cities,  and  Berlin  Energy  Transition 

Dialogue. More initiatives were provided in the second webinar (see Table 4-3). 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-24 Responses to Question 29 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This figure was created using the ATLAS.ti software. The categories in the figure do not represent pre-defined 
options that were provided to respondents in the questionnaire. 

Note 2: The figure includes initiatives with at least two or more responses. 

67 

0%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 30%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 51%, 61%, 71%, 121%, 122%, 162%, 192%, 202%, 224%, 384%, 394%, 417%, 6913%, 13726%, 26930%, 319Berlin Energy TransitionDialogueChanging CitiesGreenDeal4YouthSolar Impulse FoundationGreen Marine shipping labelSolar Power EuropeFriends of the EarthAir CaféCovenant of MayorsAssociation for theEnvironment and NatureCommon Welfare EconomyLeuven2030The Shift ProjectGeneration Climate EuropeScientixplatform Aachen sustainabilityStudents for futureGerman ZeroGreenpeaceNatagoraExtinction RebellionParents for FutureFridays For FutureScientists for Future[29] "If you are aware of or involved in any initiatives that could be potentially interested in joining the Pact, please provide their name and a brief description below, including web links and contact information where applicable" 
 
 
 
 
3.5.4  Type of ‘ambassadors’ [Q30] and interest in becoming ‘ambassadors’ [Q31] 

Question 30 asked respondents about the type of ‘ambassadors’ that could contribute to the Pact. By a large 

margin, the choice that received the most responses (74%) was “scientists, experts”(Figure 3-25). This is valid 

across  all  stakeholder  groups  (Table  3-17).  The  second  ranking  response  was  “climate  or  environmental 

activists” (34%), followed by “business people, entrepreneurs” (32%), “people active in the local community” 

(31%),  “focal  points  in  all  sectors  of  the  economy”  (25%),  “youth”  (23%),  “media,  journalists”  (22%),  and 

“celebrities” (20%). Meanwhile, the least popular responses were “artists” (10%, n=361), “sportsmen/women” 

(9%, n=304), and “other” (5%, n=167) (Figure 3-25). The open-ended responses did not provide many additional 

suggestions for ambassadors. In the “other” responses (5%), many reiterated categories of ambassadors that were 

included in the question, for instance, experts received the most responses (23%). This was followed by citizens 

(20%), entrepreneurs (13%), and youth (13%). When it comes to “business people, entrepreneurs”, the popularity 

of  this  option  varied  across  different  categories  of  professionals.  Trade  unions  and  academic/research 

institutions  showed  less  support  for  this  group  of  stakeholders  (18%  and  26%,  respectively,  compared  to  41% 

across  all  organisations)  (Table  3-16).  Trade  unions  also  showed  less  support  for  “youth”,  “climate  or 

environmental  activists”  and  “politicians”  (0-9%  vs  21-25%  across  all  organisations),  but  more  support  for 

“celebrities”  and  “teachers”  (36-45%  vs  13-17%).  Academic/  research  institutions  favoured  “education  and 

training  professionals”  (37%  vs  19%  across  all  organisations),  while  environmental  organisations  favoured 

“climate or environmental activists” (48% vs 24% across all organisations).  

When  asked  if  they  would  be  interested  in  becoming  ‘ambassadors’  for  the  Pact,  many  of  the  respondents 

stated that they do not know whether they would be interested in becoming ambassadors (46%) (Figure 3-26). 

This was especially the case for trade unions (58%) (Table 3-17). The next largest share of respondents stated 

that  they  would  be  interested  in  becoming  ambassadors  (36%)  (Figure  3-26).  Amongst the  latter group,  some 

actions that potential Pact ambassadors wish to tackle are: behavioural change and initiatives for consumers, 

circular economy initiatives (and the ‘throw-away’ culture), environmental education, water management, rural 

development, and ‘greening’ the industry.  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-25 Responses to Question 30 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select up to four (4) answers. 12,759 answers were received in total from 3,454 respondents, 
making the average number of responses per respondent 3.7 responses. 

69 

5%, 167 9%, 304 10%, 361 11%, 381 17%, 588 18%, 638 19%, 657 19%, 657 20%, 675 22%, 745 23%, 797 25%, 858 31%, 1 067 32%, 1 116 34%, 1 184 74%, 2 564 OtherSportsmen/sportswomenArtistsStudentsEducation and training professionalsSocial media influencersTeachersPoliticiansCelebritiesMedia, journalistsYouthClimate Pact ambassadors/focal points in all sectors of the economyPeople active in the local communityBusiness people, entrepreneursClimate or environmental activistsScientists, experts[Q30] "In your opinion, what type of ‘ambassadors’ could contribute to the Pact (e.g. profile, field of expertise)?" n=3454) 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-16 Responses to Question 30 of the questionnaire, split per stakeholder type 

Scien-
tists, 
experts 

Business 
people, 
entrepr
eneurs 

Climate Pact 
ambassadors
/ focal 
points in all 
sectors of 
the economy 

People 
active 
in the 
local 
comm-
unity 

Climate 
or 
environ
mental 
activists 

Politi-
cians 

Educati
on and 
training 
profe-
ssionals 

Youth 

Media, 
journa-
lists 

Celebri
ties 

Social 
media 
influen
cers 

Teach
-ers 

Students 

Artists  Other 

Sports
men/ 
sports-
women 

Ambassadors 

Total average (n=3454) 

74% 

32% 

25% 

31% 

23% 

34% 

19% 

17% 

22% 

20% 

18% 

19% 

11% 

10% 

5% 

9% 

As an individual in a 
personal capacity 
(n=2799) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2757) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity 
or on behalf of an 
organisation (n=655) 

Of which: 
Academic/research 
institution (n=84) 

Business association (n=69) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=121) 
Consumer organisation 
(n=1) 
Environmental 
organisation (n=56) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) 
(n=173) 

Trade union (n=11) 

Public authority (n=104) 

Other (n=36) 

Specific stakeholders 
(n=1747) 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=779) 

Youth (n=967) 

75% 

30% 

24% 

32% 

23% 

37% 

19% 

17% 

22% 

20% 

19% 

20% 

11% 

11% 

4% 

9% 

75% 

69% 

30% 

45% 

24% 

14% 

32% 

33% 

22% 

31% 

37% 

26% 

18% 

29% 

17% 

19% 

23% 

7% 

20% 

12% 

19% 

21% 

20% 

19% 

10% 

21% 

11% 

10% 

4% 

5% 

9% 

14% 

71% 

41% 

27% 

27% 

25% 

24% 

21% 

19% 

18% 

17% 

16% 

13% 

13% 

9% 

9% 

9% 

83% 

74% 

77% 

26% 

58% 

71% 

100% 

100% 

23% 

33% 

27% 

0% 

26% 

16% 

13% 

12% 

23% 

9% 

15% 

33% 

22% 

24% 

23% 

21% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

100% 

37% 

19% 

15% 

0% 

20% 

23% 

21% 

21% 

19% 

17% 

0% 

100% 

17% 

13% 

19% 

0% 

75% 

34% 

23% 

29% 

36% 

48% 

16% 

13% 

16% 

20% 

20% 

61% 

82% 

68% 

58% 

29% 

18% 

39% 

25% 

25% 

18% 

29% 

39% 

30% 

18% 

33% 

36% 

36% 

9% 

25% 

22% 

29% 

0% 

16% 

17% 

17% 

0% 

28% 

17% 

15% 

27% 

17% 

22% 

15% 

9% 

17% 

22% 

15% 

36% 

17% 

8% 

16% 

9% 

15% 

14% 

20% 

9% 

8% 

0% 

9% 

15% 

45% 

14% 

6% 

21% 

1% 

7% 

0% 

11% 

17% 

18% 

15% 

11% 

8% 

7% 

5% 

0% 

9% 

11% 

9% 

13% 

8% 

6% 

9% 

5% 

0% 

4% 

13% 

27% 

9% 

17% 

7% 

9% 

3% 

0% 

9% 

12% 

0% 

10% 

14% 

64% 

24% 

19% 

25% 

22% 

32% 

18% 

16% 

19% 

14% 

17% 

19% 

14% 

8% 

3% 

6% 

73% 

76% 

28% 

28% 

23% 

20% 

30% 

27% 

28% 

26% 

35% 

40% 

20% 

24% 

21% 

16% 

19% 

25% 

17% 

18% 

18% 

21% 

23% 

22% 

16% 

18% 

10% 

10% 

5% 

3% 

8% 

6% 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scien-
tists, 
experts 

Business 
people, 
entrepr
eneurs 

Climate Pact 
ambassadors
/ focal 
points in all 
sectors of 
the economy 

People 
active 
in the 
local 
comm-
unity 

Climate 
or 
environ
mental 
activists 

Politi-
cians 

Educati
on and 
training 
profe-
ssionals 

Youth 

Media, 
journa-
lists 

Celebri
ties 

Social 
media 
influen
cers 

Teach
-ers 

Students 

Artists  Other 

Sports
men/ 
sports-
women 

76% 

77% 

28% 

20% 

21% 

19% 

28% 

25% 

26% 

24% 

38% 

54% 

24% 

23% 

15% 

20% 

25% 

26% 

18% 

15% 

21% 

21% 

22% 

22% 

17% 

31% 

10% 

10% 

3% 

0% 

6% 

4% 

Ambassadors 

Of which: 
Young professionals 
(n=876) 

Young students (n=91) 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) exceed 100%. The percentages  indicate the share of 
respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: The order of answers in the top row of the table follows a descending order based on the number of professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options 
in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note 3: The blue colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points above the average, compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for 
‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ 
and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-26 Responses to Question 31 of the questionnaire 

Table 3-17 Responses to Question 31 of the questionnaire, split per stakeholder type 

Interest to become an ambassador 

Total average (n=3445) 

Yes 

Don’t 
know 

No 

37% 

46% 

18% 

As an individual in a personal capacity (n=2796) 

34% 

48% 

19% 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2754) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

34% 

36% 

48% 

55% 

19% 

10% 

In a professional capacity or on behalf of an 
organisation (n=649) 

49% 

38% 

13% 

Of which: 

Academic/research institution (n=82) 

Business association (n=68) 

Company/business organisation (n=121) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 

Environmental organisation (n=56) 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (n=169) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=106) 

Other (n=34) 

48% 

35% 

47% 

100% 

50% 

59% 

25% 

42% 

62% 

35% 

49% 

41% 

0% 

38% 

33% 

58% 

42% 

29% 

17% 

16% 

12% 

0% 

13% 

9% 

17% 

17% 

9% 

Specific stakeholders (n=1736) 

33% 

40% 

12% 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=773) 

Youth (n=957) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=866) 

Young students (n=91) 

43% 

36% 

36% 

38% 

43% 

50% 

50% 

53% 

13% 

14% 

14% 

9% 

72 

No, 605 , 18%Yes, 1 258 , 36%Don’t know, 1 582 , 46%[Q31] "Would you be interested in becoming an ‘ambassador’ for the European Climate Pact in your community or sphere of influence?" (n=3445) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.5.5 

Encouragement and development of joint green procurement [Q32] 

In  Question  32,  respondents  were  asked  whether  they  would  like  joint  green  procurement  to  be  further 

encouraged and developed in the EU. This question was open to all respondents except for citizens (EU and non-

EU) and “other” respondents. Almost two thirds of respondents stated “yes”  and 37% stated “do not know” 

(Figure 3-27). Compared to the average, non-EU citizens and trade unions answered “do not know” in a higher 

proportion  (58%  and  55%,  respectively)  (Table  3-18).  Respondents  were  asked  to  elaborate  on  their  answers. 

Amongst  those  that  replied  “yes”,  a  many  respondents  felt  that  joint  green  procurement  would  help  reach 

climate targets, and provided specific examples for green procurement (such as in the sectors of transportation, 

agriculture, and industry). Amongst those that replied “no”, many stated that this was not their area of expertise 

(n=23, or 41% of those that responded “no”). Of those that selected “do not know”, none specified their answer 

in the open text box.  

Figure 3-27 Responses to Question 32 of the questionnaire 

Table 3-18 Responses to Question 32 of the questionnaire, split per stakeholder type 

Encouragement of joint green procurement 

Yes 

Total average (n=2556) 

Do not 
know 

No 

61% 

37% 

As an individual in a personal capacity (n=1943) 

60% 

38% 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=1919) 

61% 

37% 

73 

2% 

2% 

2% 

No, 55 , 2%Do not know, 953 , 37%Yes, 1 548 , 61%[Q32] "Would you like joint green procurement to be further encouraged and developed in the EU? If so, you can elaborate on possible ways forward" (n=2556) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Encouragement of joint green procurement 

Yes 

Do not 
know 

No 

Non-EU citizen (n=24) 

38% 

58% 

4% 

In a professional capacity or on behalf of an 
organisation (n=613) 

61% 

36% 

3% 

Of which: 

Academic/research institution (n=79) 

Business association (n=65) 

Company/business organisation (n=110) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 

Environmental organisation (n=52) 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (n=166) 

Trade union (n=11) 

Public authority (n=101) 

Other (n=28) 

52% 

49% 

62% 

100% 

71% 

62% 

36% 

68% 

68% 

43% 

43% 

36% 

0% 

29% 

37% 

55% 

29% 

32% 

5% 

8% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

9% 

3% 

0% 

Specific stakeholders (n=1372) 

47% 

32% 

1% 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=612) 

Youth (n=699) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=633) 

Young students (n=66) 

58% 

57% 

57% 

58% 

40% 

42% 

42% 

41% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.5.6 

Participation and facilitation of joint green procurement by local authorities [Q33] 

When asked whether local authorities should further participate in and facilitate joint green procurement, 63% 

of respondents indicated “yes” (Figure 3-28). This percentage increased to 75% for environmental organisations 

(Table 3-19). However, 34% indicated that they did not know (Figure 3-28). Considering the responses to this 

question and to Question 32, we can conclude that a large portion of respondents did not know enough about 

green procurement to provide an informed opinion.  

Respondents were also asked to elaborate on their answer. Amongst those that replied “yes”, 33% felt that there 

should be a focus on local action, and joint green procurement is needed (23%). Respondents also mentioned 

that this process should show preference towards climate-friendly companies (10%).  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-28 Responses to Question 33 of the questionnaire 

Table 3-19 Responses to Question 33 of the questionnaire, split per stakeholder type 

Participation and facilitation of joint green 
procurement 

Total average (n=3404) 

Yes 

Do not 
know 

No 

63% 

34% 

As an individual in a personal capacity (n=2771) 

64% 

34% 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2729) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity or on behalf of an 
organisation (n=633) 

Of which: 

Academic/research institution (n=79) 

Business association (n=66) 

Company/business organisation (n=115) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 

Environmental organisation (n=55) 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (n=166) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=106) 

Other (n=33) 

2% 

2% 

2% 

5% 

64% 

48% 

33% 

48% 

59% 

38% 

3% 

57% 

52% 

61% 

0% 

75% 

60% 

50% 

59% 

52% 

41% 

44% 

37% 

100% 

25% 

38% 

50% 

38% 

42% 

3% 

5% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

3% 

6% 

Specific stakeholders (n=1720) 

54% 

30% 

1% 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=769) 

Youth (n=946) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=855) 

Young students (n=91) 

61% 

64% 

64% 

71% 

37% 

34% 

35% 

27% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

75 

No, 82 , 3%Do not know, 1 171 , 34%Yes, 2 151 , 63%[Q33] "Would you like your local authority to further participate in and facilitate joint green procurement for its citizens and stakeholders?" (n=3404) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.5.7 

Approaches to monitoring, reporting, and evaluating the implementation of pledges [Q34, Q35] 

Question 34 asked respondents what the most suitable monitoring, reporting and evaluation system would be. 

Over half of respondents answered “adapt reporting requirements and verification methods to participants’ 

emissions/pollution level” (54%) (Figure 3-29).The youth agreed with this statement to a larger extent (65%), 

while trade unions to a lesser extent (14%) (Table 3-20). Then, around one quarter of all respondents chose “use 

existing  monitoring  and  reporting  systems  from  an  independent  body”  (29%),“deep  reporting  and 

verification methods for all participants” (25%),, or “light reporting and verification methods” (24%) (Figure 

3-29).  Respondents  having  selected  “other”  (n=141)  noted  that  detailed  performance  monitoring  would 

increase administrative burden and should thus be avoided (33%), while others said that the reporting system 

should  use  already  established  systems  (30%),  and  several  mentioned  that  deep  reporting  and  verification 

methods were necessary (28%). 

In the following question (Q35), respondents were asked to share the name, link, and a brief description of such 

existing  systems.  Only  139  responses  were  provided.  Of  those  that  received  multiple  responses—aside  from 

miscellaneous  responses  (24%)  that  did  not  specify  a  suggestion,  the  Covenant  of  Mayors  (14%),    Carbon 

Disclosure Project (6%), EMAS Environmental Management System (6%) were mentioned. See Annex E for the 

full list of suggestions with associated URL links and descriptions. 
Figure 3-29 Responses to Question 34 of the questionnaire 

76 

6%, 142 15%, 370 16%, 406 24%, 603 25%, 624 29%, 724 54%, 1 330 OtherSample verification methods for all participants, to beaccomplished by an independent bodySelf- or community-monitoring by participantsLight reporting and verification methods for all participants, to beaccomplished by an independent bodyDeep reporting and verification methods for all participants, to beaccomplished by an independent bodyUse existing monitoring and reporting systems from anindependent body (e.g. for cities, towns and regions, theCovenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy)Adapt reporting requirements and verification methods to participants’ emissions/pollution level, to be accomplished by an independent body (i.e. stricter reporting requirements for organisations with larger impact on climate)[Q34] Most suitable monitoring, reporting and evaluation system (n=2484) 
 
 
 
 
 
Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select multiple answers. 4,199 answers were received in total from 2,484 respondents, making 
the average number of responses per respondent 1.7 responses. 

77 

 
 
 
 
Table 3-20 Responses to Question 34 of the questionnaire, split per stakeholder type 

Adapt reporting requirements 
and verification methods to 
participants’ 
emissions/pollution level, to 
be accomplished by an 
independent body (i.e. 
stricter reporting 
requirements for 
organisations with larger 
impact on climate) 

Use existing 
monitoring and 
reporting systems 
from an 
independent body 
(e.g. for cities, 
towns and regions, 
the Covenant of 
Mayors for Climate 
and Energy) 

Light reporting 
and verification 
methods for all 
participants, to 
be 
accomplished 
by an 
independent 
body 

Self- or 
communit
y-
monitorin
g by 
participan
ts 

Deep reporting 
and verification 
methods for all 
participants, to 
be 
accomplished 
by an 
independent 
body 

Sample 
verification 
methods for all 
participants, to 
be 
accomplished 
by an 
independent 
body 

Monitoring, reporting and evaluation systems 

Total average (n=2484) 

As an individual in a personal capacity (n=1881) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=1858) 

Non-EU citizen (n=23) 

In a professional capacity or on behalf of an 
organisation (n=603) 

Of which: 

Academic/research institution (n=80) 

Business association (n=65) 

Company/business organisation (n=111) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 

Environmental organisation (n=52) 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (n=161) 

Trade union (n=7) 

Public authority (n=99) 

Other (n=27) 

Specific stakeholders (n=1340) 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=599) 

Youth (n=674) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=613) 

Young students (n=61) 

54% 

58% 

57% 

65% 

41% 

51% 

28% 

42% 

100% 

50% 

42% 

14% 

36% 

37% 

48% 

55% 

65% 

65% 

67% 

29% 

27% 

27% 

17% 

37% 

35% 

46% 

32% 

0% 

31% 

34% 

29% 

42% 

52% 

22% 

30% 

26% 

26% 

23% 

78 

24% 

16% 

23% 

14% 

23% 

22% 

14% 

22% 

27% 

22% 

28% 

29% 

25% 

100% 

29% 

24% 

29% 

31% 

26% 

24% 

20% 

23% 

100% 

19% 

22% 

14% 

20% 

33% 

17% 

14% 

24% 

19% 

19% 

23% 

21% 

15% 

14% 

21% 

25% 

28% 

28% 

30% 

16% 

15% 

9% 

16% 

0% 

15% 

19% 

29% 

15% 

19% 

25% 

30% 

35% 

35% 

30% 

Other 

6% 

4% 

4% 

0% 

15% 

15% 

14% 

30% 

16% 

10% 

21% 

17% 

17% 

100% 

10% 

16% 

14% 

11% 

22% 

4% 

15% 

8% 

0% 

6% 

16% 

29% 

7% 

7% 

14% 

4% 

19% 

16% 

16% 

10% 

6% 

3% 

3% 

0% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of 
respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: The order of answers in the top row of the table follows a descending order based on the number of professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options 
in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note 3: The blue colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points above the average, compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for 
‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ 
and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

79 

 
 
 
 
3.5.8 

Suggestions for additional functions of the Climate Pact [Q36] 

Question 36 asked respondents to provide suggestions on potential, additional functions of the Pact. The question 

was  open  in  format  and  required  mandatory  written  responses.  In  total,  3,510  responded,  out  of  which  673 

provided no response. The latter were excluded from the analysis (Figure 3-30). The main suggestions that were 

mentioned  by  respondents  included  education  and/or  training  on  climate  related  issues  (20%),  challenge 

carbon  intensive  food  production/consumption  (16%),  promote  renewable  energy  generation  (13%),  and 

disseminate information through knowledge sharing  (13%) (Figure 3-30). Among specific stakeholders, some 

important differences can be observed among trade unions, which show significantly more support for promoting 

bottom-up/ grassroot initiatives and climate-friendly mobility than other organisations (29% vs 6% and 29% vs 4%, 

respectively) (Table 3-21). 

80 

 
 
 
Figure 3-30 Responses to Question 36 of the questionnaire  

Note: This figure was created based on themes that were identified using the ATLAS.ti software. The categories in the 
figure do not represent pre-defined options that were provided to respondents in the questionnaire. 

81 

0%, 51%, 161%, 181%, 211%, 251%, 261%, 271%, 281%, 373%, 934%, 1034%, 1244%, 1245%, 1415%, 1416%, 1716%, 1747%, 20410%, 27313%, 35813%, 37616%, 46420%, 568Ease barriers for citizen initiatives to startPromote the urgency to act on climate changePromote and share best practicesFoster cooperation with non-EU countries/initativesMaintain a narrow and well defined focusPromote green rural developmentContend with fossil-fuel lobbiestTransparency/accountabilityAllow for citizens to contribute to climate policyEnsure consistency/synergy between initatives/groupsProtect the interests of future generationsInvolvement of the private sectorSocial inclusion/a just transistionPromote climate friendly mobility/transportationProvide enforcement mechanismsProvide financial incentives/supportPromote bottom-up/grassroot actionApply circular economy techinques; waste/consumptionreductionIntegrate biodiversity issues into to climate actionDesseminate information/knowledge sharingPromote renewable energy generationChallenge carbon intensive food production/consumptionEducation/training on climate related issues[Q36] "The European Climate Pact will develop and grow over time. Do you have suggestions for additional functions the Pact should provide or topics it should address?"(n=2837) 
 
 
 
Table 3-21 Responses to Question 36 of the questionnaire, split per stakeholder type 

Suggestions for 
additional 
functions of the 
Pact over time 
Total average 
(n=2837) 

As an individual 
in a personal 
capacity 
(n=2299) 

Of which: 
EU citizen 
(n=2265) 
Non-EU citizen 
(n=34) 

In a professional 
capacity or on 
behalf of an 
organisation 
(n=538) 

Of which: 
Academic/researc
h institution 
(n=66) 
Business 
association (n=50) 
Company/business 
organisation 
(n=104) 
Consumer 
organisation (n=1) 
Environmental 
organisation 
(n=48) 
Non-governmental 
organisation 
(NGO) (n=150) 

Challenge 
carbon 
intensive 
food 
produc-
tion/ 
consumpt
ion 

Dessemi-
nate 
informa-
tion/ 
know-
ledge 
sharing 

Education
/ training 
on 
climate 
related 
issues 

Promote 
renew-
able 
energy 
genera-
tion 

Apply 
circular 
economy 
tech-
niques; 
waste/ 
consump-
tion 
reduction 

Integrate 
bio-
diversity 
issues 
into to 
climate 
action 

Promote 
bottom-
up/ 
grassroot 
action 

Provide 
financial 
incentives
/ support 

Ensure 
consiste
ncy/ 
synergy 
betwee
n 
initative
s/ 
groups 

Protect 
the 
interests 
of future 
generatio
ns 

Involve-
ment of 
the 
private 
sector 

Promote 
climate 
friendly 
mobility/ 
transportat
ion 

Provide 
enforce
-ment 
mechani
sms 

Social 
inclusion/
a just 
transition 

19% 

15% 

12% 

12% 

7% 

6% 

9% 

6% 

3% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

5% 

5% 

19% 

17% 

13% 

12% 

6% 

5% 

10% 

6% 

3% 

3% 

4% 

4% 

5% 

5% 

20% 

12% 

17% 

6% 

13% 

15% 

12% 

6% 

6% 

9% 

5% 

6% 

10% 

15% 

6% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

0% 

4% 

0% 

4% 

6% 

5% 

0% 

5% 

6% 

17% 

10% 

9% 

9% 

9% 

8% 

8% 

6% 

6% 

6% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

2% 

26% 

10% 

14% 

0% 

9% 

10% 

10% 

0% 

11% 

4% 

3% 

100% 

21% 

13% 

17% 

11% 

12% 

13% 

11% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

6% 

6% 

9% 

12% 

10% 

0% 

4% 

5% 

6% 

4% 

11% 

0% 

4% 

8% 

3% 

2% 

15% 

0% 

8% 

6% 

82 

8% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

4% 

8% 

12% 

4% 

4% 

0% 

0% 

7% 

3% 

4% 

3% 

0% 

10% 

10% 

5% 

2% 

6% 

0% 

8% 

3% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

2% 

6% 

3% 

6% 

4% 

100% 

0% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

3% 

0% 

8% 

3% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Challenge 
carbon 
intensive 
food 
produc-
tion/ 
consumpt
ion 

Dessemi-
nate 
informa-
tion/ 
know-
ledge 
sharing 

Promote 
renew-
able 
energy 
genera-
tion 

Apply 
circular 
economy 
tech-
niques; 
waste/ 
consump-
tion 
reduction 

Integrate 
bio-
diversity 
issues 
into to 
climate 
action 

Promote 
bottom-
up/ 
grassroot 
action 

Provide 
financial 
incentives
/ support 

Ensure 
consiste
ncy/ 
synergy 
betwee
n 
initative
s/ 
groups 

Protect 
the 
interests 
of future 
generatio
ns 

Involve-
ment of 
the 
private 
sector 

Promote 
climate 
friendly 
mobility/ 
transportat
ion 

Provide 
enforce
-ment 
mechani
sms 

Social 
inclusion/
a just 
transition 

0% 

7% 

7% 

0% 

10% 

7% 

0% 

7% 

14% 

14% 

17% 

7% 

0% 

12% 

3% 

0% 

8% 

10% 

29% 

10% 

3% 

0% 

8% 

3% 

0% 

2% 

3% 

14% 

0% 

3% 

0% 

2% 

3% 

29% 

4% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Education
/ training 
on 
climate 
related 
issues 

29% 

23% 

17% 

22% 

16% 

15% 

10% 

6% 

6% 

9% 

6% 

3% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

22% 

23% 

22% 

30% 

14% 

17% 

17% 

18% 

13% 

17% 

16% 

25% 

8% 

11% 

11% 

15% 

6% 

6% 

6% 

3% 

5% 

6% 

6% 

3% 

9% 

9% 

8% 

13% 

6% 

6% 

6% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

1% 

6% 

6% 

6% 

3% 

4% 

5% 

4% 

10% 

5% 

5% 

6% 

3% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

Suggestions for 
additional 
functions of the 
Pact over time 

Trade union (n=7) 
Public authority 
(n=83) 

Other (n=29) 

Specific 
stakeholders 
(n=1212) 

Of which: 
Education sector 
(n=649) 

Youth (n=788) 

Of which: 
Young 
professionals 
(n=717) 
Young students 
(n=71) 

Note 1: Responses may cover multiple themes, so the percentages indicated in the table above indicate the share of respondents having approached each of the given themes in 
their open responses (out of total respondents). To calculate total respondents, respondents that did not provide an answer to the question were excluded.  

Note 2: Only the most important themes have been included in the table, selected based upon the responses illustrated in Figure 3-30. 

Note 3: The order of answers in the top row of the table follows a descending order based on the number of professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options 
in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note 4: The blue colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points above the average, compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for 
‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ 
and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. The orange colouring indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average.  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.6  Actions and interest in the Climate Pact 

3.6.1 

Self-reported climate friendliness [Q37] and preparedness to become more climate-friendly 

[Q38] 

Over  80%  of  respondents  reported  being  either  “very  climate-friendly”  (n=825)  or  “quite  climate-friendly” 

(n=2,094)  (Figure  3-31).  Academic/research  institutions,  trade  unions,  and  public  authorities  reported  being 

climate-friendly in a lower proportion than other types of stakeholders, with between 15% and 28% of respondents 

stating  that  they  were  “not  so  climate  friendly”  or  “not  at  all  climate-friendly”  (Figure  3-32).  In  fact, 

academic/research  institutions  considered  themselves  not  to  be  so  climate-friendly  in  a  significantly  higher 

proportion than the average organisation (26% vs 9%). Meanwhile, environmental organisations reported being 

“very” climate-friendly in a significantly higher proportion than the average organisation (59% vs 35%) (Table 

3-22).  

When asked to what extent they could become more climate-friendly, many respondents (80%) stated that they 

would  have  “some”  (n=1,620)  or  “many”  (n=1,145)  opportunities  to  become  more  climate-friendly  (Figure 

3-33). Amongst the different types of stakeholders, academic/research institutions and non-EU citizens were the 

most  enthusiastic  about  having  “many”  opportunities  to  become  more  climate-friendly  (50%  and  51%, 

respectively, compared to an average of 33%). As seen in Question 11, an important share of non-EU citizens 

(40%) were researchers. Additionally, trade unions believed that they have “some” opportunities to become more 

climate-friendly in a significantly higher proportion than the average organisation (64% vs 47%) (Table 3-23, Figure 

3-34). 

Figure 3-31 Responses to Question 37 of the questionnaire 

84 

1. Not at all climate-friendly, 37 , 1%Do not know, 79 , 2%2. Not so climate-friendly, 429 , 12%4. Very climate-friendly, 825 , 24%3. Quite climate-friendly, 2 094 , 61%[Q37] "In your view, how climate-friendly are you or your organisation now?" (n=3464) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-32 Responses to Question 37 of the questionnaire (split across stakeholders) 

Table 3-22 Responses to Question 37 of the questionnaire, split per type of stakeholder 

Level of climate-
friendliness 
Total average 
(n=3464) 

As an individual in a 
personal capacity 
(n=2813) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2773) 

Non-EU citizen (n=40) 

In a professional 
capacity or on behalf 
of an organisation 
(n=651) 

Of which: 
Academic/research 
institution (n=82) 
Business association 
(n=68) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=121) 
Consumer 
organisation (n=1) 
Environmental 
organisation (n=56) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) 
(n=170) 

Trade union (n=12) 

3. Quite climate-
friendly 

4. Very climate-
friendly 

2. Not so 
climate-friendly 

Do not know 

1. Not at all 
climate-friendly 

60% 

24% 

12% 

62% 

63% 

55% 

21% 

21% 

30% 

52% 

35% 

56% 

56% 

49% 

0% 

36% 

55% 

50% 

16% 

35% 

40% 

0% 

59% 

38% 

17% 

85 

13% 

13% 

10% 

9% 

26% 

4% 

7% 

0% 

0% 

5% 

17% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

3% 

3% 

0% 

4% 

3% 

100% 

4% 

2% 

17% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

3% 

1% 

2% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

2% 

1% 

0% 

100%17%4%2%9%3%3%4%2%4%2%3%1%3%1%1%2%17%26%12%13%6%10%7%4%5%50%56%54%63%55%55%49%56%55%36%17%16%28%21%30%30%40%35%38%59%Consumer organisation (n=1)Trade union (n=12)Academic/research institution (n=82)Public authority (n=108)EU citizen (n=2773)Other (n=33)Non-EU citizen (n=40)Company/business organisation (n=121)Business association (n=68)Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (n=170)Environmental organisation (n=56)[Q37] "In your view, how climate-friendly are you or your organisation now?" (n=3464)Do not know1. Not at all climate-friendly2. Not so climate-friendly3. Quite climate-friendly4. Very climate-friendly 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Level of climate-
friendliness 
Public authority 
(n=108) 

Other (n=33) 

Specific stakeholders 
(n=1749) 

Of which: 
Education sector 
(n=778) 

Youth (n=967) 

Of which: 
Young professionals 
(n=876) 

Young students (n=91) 

3. Quite climate-
friendly 

4. Very climate-
friendly 

2. Not so 
climate-friendly 

Do not know 

1. Not at all 
climate-friendly 

54% 

55% 

53% 

60% 

65% 

65% 

63% 

28% 

30% 

19% 

25% 

22% 

22% 

20% 

12% 

6% 

11% 

13% 

12% 

11% 

15% 

4% 

9% 

1% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

3% 

0% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
‘professionals’  category;  and  so  on.  The  results  presented  in  the  ‘young  professionals’  and  ‘young  students’  rows  are 
compared  to the  ‘youth’  category.  The  orange  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage 
points below the average. 

Figure 3-33 Responses to Question 38 of the questionnaire 

86 

Do not know, 74 , 2%1. Very little opportunities to become more climate-friendly, 133 , 4%2. Little opportunities to become more climate-friendly, 484 , 14%4. Many opportunities to become more climate-friendly, 1 145 , 33%3. Some opportunities to become more climate-friendly, 1 620 , 47%[Q38] "In your view, to what extent could you or your organisation become more climate-friendly?" (n=739) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-34 Responses to Question 38 of the questionnaire (split across stakeholders) 

Table 3-23 Responses to Question 38 of the questionnaire, split per type of stakeholder 

Preparedness to become more 
climate friendly 

Total average (n=3456) 

As an individual in a personal 
capacity (n=2807) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2766) 

Non-EU citizen (n=41) 

In a professional capacity or 
on behalf of an organisation 
(n=649) 

Of which: 
Academic/research institution 
(n=82) 

Business association (n=69) 
Company/business organisation 
(n=121) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 
Environmental organisation 
(n=56) 
Non-governmental organisation 
(NGO) (n=168) 

Trade union (n=11) 

Public authority (n=108) 

Other (n=33) 

3. Some 
opportunities to 
become more 
climate-friendly 

4. Many 
opportunities to 
become more 
climate-friendly 

2. Little 
opportunities to 
become more 
climate-friendly 

1. Very little 
opportunities to 
become more 
climate-friendly 

Do not 
know 

47% 

47% 

47% 

29% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

51% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

10% 

4% 

2% 

4% 

4% 

5% 

2% 

2% 

5% 

47% 

33% 

13% 

5% 

2% 

35% 

59% 

45% 

0% 

45% 

46% 

64% 

50% 

48% 

50% 

22% 

34% 

0% 

23% 

29% 

36% 

39% 

33% 

6% 

16% 

16% 

0% 

18% 

18% 

0% 

6% 

6% 

4% 

1% 

5% 

0% 

13% 

6% 

0% 

3% 

6% 

5% 

1% 

1% 

100% 

2% 

1% 

0% 

3% 

6% 

Specific stakeholders (n=1744) 

40% 

28% 

12% 

3% 

1% 

87 

100%2%1%1%2%5%1%6%5%3%13%6%5%4%5%1%6%4%3%18%18%16%14%10%16%6%6%6%45%46%45%47%29%59%48%35%50%64%23%29%34%33%51%22%33%50%39%36%Consumer organisation (n=1)Environmental organisation (n=56)Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (n=168)Company/business organisation (n=121)EU citizen (n=2766)Non-EU citizen (n=41)Business association (n=69)Other (n=33)Academic/research institution (n=82)Public authority (n=108)Trade union (n=11)[Q38] "In your view, to what extent could you or your organisation become more climate-friendly?" (n=3456)Do not know1. Very little opportunities to become more climate-friendly2. Little opportunities to become more climate-friendly3. Some opportunities to become more climate-friendly4. Many opportunities to become more climate-friendly 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Preparedness to become more 
climate friendly 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=776) 

Youth (n=963) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=873) 

Young students (n=90) 

3. Some 
opportunities to 
become more 
climate-friendly 

4. Many 
opportunities to 
become more 
climate-friendly 

2. Little 
opportunities to 
become more 
climate-friendly 

1. Very little 
opportunities to 
become more 
climate-friendly 

Do not 
know 

48% 

47% 

46% 

48% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

34% 

14% 

15% 

15% 

10% 

3% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

3% 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note  3:  The  blue  colouring  in  the  table  indicates  a  difference  of  at  least  15  percentage  points  above  the  average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and 
so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. 
The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.6.2  What would help individuals and organisations take more climate action or become more 

climate-friendly [Q39] 

The most important means to helping individuals and organisations take more climate action or become more 

climate-friendly  were  “more  appropriate  infrastructures  facilitating  climate-friendly  behaviours”  (72%), 

“concrete support (including financial) or incentives to adopt more climate-friendly behaviours or practices” 

(67%), and “stricter laws, regulation and enforcement” (62%). With a more important margin of difference, 

greater  knowledge  about  climate  action  (including  information  about  climate  and  environmental  footprints) 

was  also  considered  important  by  respondents  (27-28%)  (Figure  3-35).  Professionals  supported  “stricter  laws, 

regulation and enforcement” to a lesser extent than the average (41% vs  62%), particularly trade unions (17%) 

(Table  3-24).  However,  environmental  organisations  (64%)  and  the  youth  (75%)  showed  a  strong  support  for 

stricter laws and regulation. 

In terms of “other” means to enabling action or inciting climate-friendliness, responses (n=248) included: more 

climate-friendly products and services (23%), financial support (21%), more carbon neutral mobility options 

(16%), and encourage industries to commit to climate action (15%).  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-35 Responses to Question 39 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note  2:  Respondents  could  select  multiple  answers.  10,959  answers  were  received  in  total  from  3,510  respondents, 
making the average number of responses per respondent 3.1 responses. 

89 

1%, 35 1%, 37 7%, 249 15%, 536 16%, 558 17%, 597 27%, 931 28%, 994 62%, 2 164 67%, 2 339 72%, 2 519 Nothing, I do not plan to changeDo not knowOtherMoral (non-material) incentives, e.g. recognition,praise by othersSeeing more people in my social network/similarorganisations engage in climate actionConnecting with others engaged or interested inclimate actionMore information of climate and environmentalfootprintsGreater knowledge on what I or my organisation can doto take climate actionStricter laws, regulation and enforcementConcrete support (including financial) or incentives toadopt more climate-friendly behaviours or practicesMore appropriate infrastructures facilitating climate-friendly behaviours[Q39] "What would help you or your organisation to take more climate action/become more climate-friendly?" (n=3510) 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-24 Responses to Question 39 of the questionnaire (split according to respondent types) 

Help to take more climate 
action 

Total average (n=3510) 

As an individual in a personal 
capacity (n=2842) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2800) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity or 
on behalf of an organisation 
(n=668) 

Of which: 
Academic/research 
institution (n=84) 

Business association (n=70) 
Company/business 
organisation (n=124) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 
Environmental organisation 
(n=56) 
Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) (n=174) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=110) 

Other (n=37) 

Specific stakeholders 
(n=1768) 

Of which: 

Concrete support 
(including 
financial) or 
incentives to 
adopt more 
climate-friendly 
behaviours or 
practices 

More 
appropriate 
infrastructures 
facilitating 
climate-friendly 
behaviours 

Stricter 
laws, 
regulation 
and 
enforce-
ment 

More 
informati
on of 
climate 
and 
environm
ental 
footprints 

Greater 
knowledge on 
what I or my 
organisation 
can do to 
take climate 
action 

Connecting 
with others 
engaged or 
interested 
in climate 
action 

Moral (non-
material) 
incentives, 
e.g. 
recognition, 
praise by 
others 

Seeing more 
people in my 
social 
network/similar 
organisations 
engage in 
climate action 

Nothing
, I do 
not plan 
to 
change 

Other 

Do not 
know 

67% 

65% 

65% 

60% 

72% 

62% 

27% 

28% 

17% 

15% 

16% 

7% 

1% 

1% 

75% 

66% 

26% 

28% 

15% 

76% 

52% 

67% 

60% 

26% 

26% 

28% 

36% 

15% 

33% 

15% 

15% 

19% 

17% 

6% 

1% 

17% 

21% 

6% 

14% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

72% 

57% 

41% 

29% 

28% 

25% 

16% 

13% 

11% 

2% 

1% 

63% 

79% 

73% 

0% 

64% 

75% 

67% 

75% 

70% 

63% 

46% 

64% 

100% 

63% 

56% 

58% 

57% 

38% 

39% 

30% 

44% 

100% 

64% 

40% 

17% 

39% 

41% 

32% 

33% 

26% 

100% 

20% 

24% 

50% 

32% 

41% 

39% 

20% 

23% 

100% 

16% 

27% 

33% 

36% 

30% 

27% 

24% 

21% 

0% 

23% 

26% 

17% 

30% 

22% 

15% 

16% 

16% 

0% 

25% 

19% 

0% 

8% 

16% 

15% 

9% 

14% 

0% 

4% 

17% 

9% 

0% 

13% 

11% 

15% 

8% 

9% 

11% 

11% 

17% 

14% 

16% 

5% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

4% 

1% 

8% 

1% 

8% 

0% 

3% 

1% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

57% 

63% 

57% 

22% 

27% 

15% 

14% 

14% 

4% 

1% 

1% 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Concrete support 
(including 
financial) or 
incentives to 
adopt more 
climate-friendly 
behaviours or 
practices 

More 
appropriate 
infrastructures 
facilitating 
climate-friendly 
behaviours 

Stricter 
laws, 
regulation 
and 
enforce-
ment 

67% 

67% 

67% 

72% 

70% 

76% 

76% 

77% 

59% 

75% 

74% 

78% 

More 
informati
on of 
climate 
and 
environm
ental 
footprints 

27% 

24% 

24% 

25% 

Greater 
knowledge on 
what I or my 
organisation 
can do to 
take climate 
action 

Connecting 
with others 
engaged or 
interested 
in climate 
action 

Moral (non-
material) 
incentives, 
e.g. 
recognition, 
praise by 
others 

Seeing more 
people in my 
social 
network/similar 
organisations 
engage in 
climate action 

31% 

31% 

31% 

27% 

22% 

14% 

15% 

13% 

17% 

15% 

16% 

5% 

17% 

18% 

18% 

14% 

Nothing
, I do 
not plan 
to 
change 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

Other 

Do not 
know 

5% 

4% 

5% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

Help to take more climate 
action 

Education sector (n=787) 

Youth (n=981) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=888) 

Young students (n=93) 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) exceed 100%. The percentages  indicate the share of 
respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: The order of answers in the top row of the table follows a descending order based on the number of professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options 
in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note 3: The blue colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points above the average, compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for 
‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ 
and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

91 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
3.6.3 

Interest in taking part in the Climate Pact [Q40] 

A large share of respondents would be interested in taking part of the Pact, either as an individual citizen 

(65%) or as an organisation (18%) (Figure 3-36). In general, in comparison to organisations, EU and non-EU citizens 

were more likely to take part in the  Pact as individual  citizens (in proportions of 74% and 77%, respectively). 

Organisations were more likely to take part as organisations, in a proportion of 70% overall (Table 3-25, Figure 

3-37). Academic/research institutions were almost equally split between taking part in the Pact as organisations 

(45%)  or  as  individuals  (43%),  while  most  trade  unions  stated  that  they  would  be  interested  to  take  part  as 

organisations (92%).  On average, around 14% of respondents did not know whether they would be interested in 

taking part in the Pact and 4% were not interested in taking part in the Pact (Figure 3-36). Amongst the latter 

group, the proportion of individuals that would not want to take part in the Pact is slightly higher than that of 

organisations (5% vs 2%, respectively) (Table 3-25). 

Figure 3-36 Responses to Question 40 of the questionnaire 

Figure 3-37 Responses to Question 40 of the questionnaire (split across stakeholders) 

92 

No, 141 , 4%Do not know, 479 , 13%Yes, as an organisation, 620 , 18%Yes, as an individual citizen, 2 270 , 65%[Q40] "Would you be interested in taking part in the European Climate Pact?" (n=748)14%74%14%1%43%14%10%10%77%100%92%68%10%70%73%45%66%77%79%5%3%2%2%1%6%3%2%5%8%16%14%14%24%6%17%11%11%14%Consumer organisation (n=1)Trade union (n=12)Other (n=37)Non-EU citizen (n=42)Environmental organisation (n=56)Business association (n=70)Academic/research institution (n=84)Public authority (n=110)Company/business organisation (n=124)Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (n=174)EU citizen (n=2800)[Q40] "Would you be interested in taking part in the European Climate Pact?" (n=3510)Yes, as an individual citizenYes, as an organisationNoDo not know 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Table 3-25 Responses to Question 40 of the questionnaire, split per type of stakeholder 

Interest in taking part in the Climate Pact 

Total average (n=3510) 

As an individual in a personal capacity (n=2842) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2800) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity or on behalf of an 
organisation (n=668) 

Of which: 

Academic/research institution (n=84) 

Business association (n=70) 

Company/business organisation (n=124) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 

Environmental organisation (n=56) 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (n=174) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=110) 

Other (n=37) 

Yes, as an 
organisation 

Yes, as an 
individual 
citizen 

Do not 
know 

No 

18% 

5% 

5% 

10% 

65% 

76% 

77% 

74% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

70% 

14% 

13% 

45% 

73% 

77% 

100% 

70% 

79% 

92% 

66% 

68% 

43% 

1% 

10% 

0% 

14% 

10% 

0% 

14% 

14% 

6% 

24% 

11% 

0% 

14% 

11% 

8% 

17% 

16% 

Specific stakeholders (n=1502) 

14% 

71% 

12% 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=787) 

Youth (n=981) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=888) 

Young students (n=93) 

23% 

6% 

6% 

3% 

64% 

79% 

79% 

82% 

10% 

12% 

12% 

13% 

4% 

5% 

5% 

2% 

2% 

6% 

1% 

2% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

4% 

2% 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the table above (for each type of stakeholder) 
exceed 100%. The percentages indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their 
answers. 

Note  2:  The  order  of  answers  in  the  top  row  of  the  table  follows  a  descending  order  based  on  the  number  of 
professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in 
the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note 3: The blue colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points above the average, 
compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for ‘individuals’, ‘organisations’, and ‘specific stakeholders’, 
the shares are compared to the ‘total average’; for citizens, the shares are compared to the ‘individuals’ category; for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; 
and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and ‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ 
category. The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

3.6.4 

Impact of activities under the Climate Pact [Q41] 

Activities that were considered to have most impact on society were: “practical (material) support to grassroots 

initiatives”  (59%),  “practical  tips  and  consumer-friendly  tools  for  assessing  footprints  and  taking  climate 

action”  (53%),  “awareness-raising  on  climate  change  and  its  impacts”  (50%),  “educational,  training  and 

learning material” (50%), facilitation of bottom-up collaboration and exchanges of experiences (31-43%), as 

well as “stimulating and recording voluntary commitments to climate action”  (23%) (Figure 3-38). Material 

support for grassroots initiatives (e.g.  capacity-building, access to funding) was considered the most impactful 

activity  by  both  individuals  and  organisations,  in  an  equal  proportion  (59%)  (Table  3-26).  However,  amongst 

organisations, trade unions and business associations supported this activity less than the average organisation 

(25%  and  40%,  respectively,  compared  to  59%).  Business  associations  showed  significantly  more  support  for 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
exchanging  experiences  and  best  practices  than  the  average  organisation  (59%  vs  43%),  while  trade  unions 

believed that educational, training and learning material would be most impactful (67% compared to an average 

of 46% for organisations). Companies were interested in stimulating and recording voluntary commitments, more 

than the average organisation (36% vs 21%). 

When thinking about “other” activities (11%), many respondents reiterated the importance of strong legislation, 

regulation, and policy measures (including taxation) (46%), as a means to changing the rules of production and 

consumption  and  showing  leadership.  Some  respondents  underlined  the  need  for  more  funding  for  climate 

initiatives and projects (24%), and others  wished to see pressure on industries for systemic change  (19%). A 

few respondents mentioned awareness-raising (7%) as an important activity of the Pact.  

Figure 3-38 Responses to Question 41 of the questionnaire 

Note 1: This is a multiple-answer question, so the percentages indicated in the figure above exceed 100%. The percentages 
indicate the share of respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: Respondents could select up to four (4) answers. 11,900 answers were received in total from 3,510 respondents, 
making the average number of responses per respondent 3.4 responses. 

94 

11%, 370 19%, 680 23%, 810 31%, 1 083 43%, 1 523 50%, 1 741 50%, 1 742 53%, 1 875 59%, 2 076 OtherNon-material incentives, e.g. nudging, naming andshamingStimulating and recording voluntary commitmentsto climate actionFacilitating the exchange of experiences and bestpracticeFacilitating bottom-up collaboration and actionbetween people, organisations and initiativesEducational, training and learning materialAwareness-raising on climate change and itsimpactsPractical tips and consumer-friendly tools forassessing footprints and taking climate actionPractical (material) support to grassroots initiatives(e.g. capacity-building, access to funding)[Q41] "In your opinion, which types of activities under the European Climate Pact would have the biggest impact in society?" (n=3510) 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-26 Responses to Question 41 (split according to respondent type)  

Activities 

Total average (n=3510) 

As an individual in a personal 
capacity (n=2842) 

Of which: 

EU citizen (n=2800) 

Non-EU citizen (n=42) 

In a professional capacity or on 
behalf of an organisation 
(n=668) 

Of which: 
Academic/research institution 
(n=84) 

Business association (n=70) 
Company/business organisation 
(n=124) 

Consumer organisation (n=1) 
Environmental organisation 
(n=56) 
Non-governmental organisation 
(NGO) (n=174) 

Trade union (n=12) 

Public authority (n=110) 

Other (n=37) 

Specific stakeholders (n=1768) 

Of which: 

Education sector (n=787) 

Youth (n=981) 

Of which: 

Young professionals (n=888) 

Young students (n=93) 

Practical 
(material) support 
to grass-roots 
initiatives (e.g. 
capacity-building, 
access to funding) 

Facilitating bottom-
up collaboration 
and action between 
people, 
organisations and 
initiatives 

Awareness-
raising on 
climate 
change and 
its impacts 

Educational
, training 
and 
learning 
material 

Practical tips 
and consumer-
friendly tools 
for assessing 
footprints and 
taking climate 
action 

Facilitating 
the exchange 
of 
experiences 
and best 
practice 

Stimulating and 
recording 
voluntary 
commitments 
to climate 
action 

Non-material 
incentives, 
e.g. nudging, 
naming and 
shaming 

Other 

59% 

59% 

59% 

57% 

59% 

45% 

40% 

58% 

0% 

63% 

67% 

25% 

68% 

73% 

53% 

62% 

63% 

62% 

72% 

43% 

50% 

50% 

53% 

31% 

23% 

19% 

11% 

41% 

41% 

45% 

49% 

50% 

49% 

60% 

50% 

52% 

55% 

55% 

48% 

28% 

28% 

40% 

24% 

24% 

7% 

21% 

10% 

21% 

24% 

10% 

14% 

53% 

51% 

46% 

46% 

43% 

21% 

11% 

11% 

60% 

37% 

42% 

0% 

52% 

60% 

50% 

59% 

51% 

57% 

60% 

50% 

100% 

61% 

45% 

50% 

45% 

49% 

57% 

47% 

39% 

100% 

41% 

45% 

67% 

45% 

49% 

55% 

40% 

48% 

100% 

36% 

44% 

17% 

51% 

46% 

42% 

59% 

43% 

100% 

32% 

43% 

42% 

43% 

38% 

17% 

21% 

36% 

0% 

20% 

18% 

8% 

13% 

14% 

10% 

6% 

8% 

0% 

6% 

14% 

10% 

0% 

16% 

11% 

15% 

17% 

9% 

14% 

14% 

8% 

9% 

14% 

38% 

43% 

46% 

45% 

23% 

20% 

19% 

8% 

48% 

43% 

44% 

35% 

48% 

52% 

53% 

48% 

95 

55% 

52% 

51% 

63% 

51% 

54% 

54% 

55% 

31% 

22% 

22% 

18% 

21% 

25% 

25% 

28% 

19% 

27% 

27% 

22% 

10% 

8% 

8% 

8% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note  1:  This  is  a  multiple-answer  question,  so  the  percentages  indicated  in  the  table  above  (for  each  type  of  stakeholder)  exceed  100%.  The  percentages  indicate  the  share  of 
respondents having selected each of the given options as one of their answers. 

Note 2: The order of answers in the top row of the table follows a descending order based on the number of professionals/organisations that selected each of the respective options in 
their responses (i.e. based on the numbers in the row “In a professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation”). 

Note 3: The blue colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points  above the average,  compared to the average of the next-highest category, i.e. for 
‘individuals’,  ‘organisations’,  and  ‘specific  stakeholders’,  the  shares  are  compared  to  the  ‘total  average’;  for  citizens,  the  shares  are  compared  to  the  ‘individuals’  category;  for 
academic/research institutions, business associations, etc., the shares are compared to the ‘professionals’ category; and so on. The results presented in the ‘young professionals’ and 
‘young students’ rows are compared to the ‘youth’ category. The orange colouring in the table indicates a difference of at least 15 percentage points below the average. 

96 

 
 
 
 
4 Results of the stakeholder workshops 
(webinars) to support the Open Public 
Consultation 

The objective of the webinars, similar to that of the OPC, was to offer opportunities for learning, exchange 

and co-creation of the Climate Pact. A portion of the webinars was dedicated to introducing participants to 

the Climate Pact initiative and answer their questions. The other half of the webinar was dedicated to listening 

to participants, collecting their feedback, suggestions, and other ideas. In both webinars, discussion was 

encouraged among participants in small breakout rooms, and with EU representatives during the Q&A.   

4.1  Results of the first webinar 

The first webinar for the consultation on the EU Climate Pact occurred on the 15th of June, 2020. The webinar 

was  led  and  facilitated  by  the  European  Commission  (department  for  Climate  Action)  ,  with  a  plenary 

presentation from the European Commission’s Head of Unit, Elena Višnar Malinovská. 167 participants registered 

for the webinar, with geographical representation distributed across Europe (Figure 4-1 ). The most represented 

countries of origin were Belgium (n=49, 29%), Italy (n=25, 15%), and Germany (n=18, 11%). In the first webinar, 

participants  from  Germany  were,  therefore,  less  represented  than  in  the  OPC  (where  they  made  up  39%  of 

respondents).  Participants  from  Belgium  and  Italy  made  up  a  larger  share  of  the  group,  compared  to  their 

representation  in  the  OPC  (12%  and  7%,  respectively).  In  the  opening  presentation,  124  participants  were 

present, out of which 70 were still present in the final Q&A and summary session.  

97 

 
 
 
Figure 4-1 Countries of origin of participants 

Note: This figure was created using Excel, with a tool powered by Bing (© DSAT Editor, GeoNames). 

The composition of participants included companies, NGOs, public authorities, business associations, academic 

and  research  institutions,  citizens,  environmental  organisations,  and  lobbying  associations  (Figure  4-2).  The 

largest share of participants indicated representation (formal or informal) to a company/business organisation 

(26%) followed closely by NGOs (24%). This is contrast to the consultation itself, in which EU citizens accounted 

for  the  largest  share  of  respondents  (80%).  This  is  possibly  explained  by  how  participants  elected  to  identify 

themselves  in  the  consultation,  and  the  option  to  informally  represent  their  affiliated  organisation  in  the 

webinar.  

98 

Germany, 18, 11%France, 10, 6%Belgium, 49, 29%Italy, 25, 15%Spain, 9, 5%Netherlands, 4, 2%Portugal, 3, 2%Finland, 5, 3%Austria, 1, 1%Poland, 8, 5%Czechia, 1, 1%Romania, 5, 3%Hungary, 4, 2%Ireland, 1, 1%Sweden, 2, 1%Greece, 1, 1%Slovakia, 2, 1%Denmark, 3, 2%Bulgaria, 1, 1%Croatia, 2, 1%Estonia, 1, 1%Lithuania, 1, 1%Cyprus, 2, 1%Malta, 5, 0%Other, 9, 4%Participant country of origin (n=167) –at registration 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4-2 Webinar 1 participant representation  

Prior to joining the webinar, participants were asked to respond to two questions:  

1.  What initiatives are you planning or implementing to make your organisation more climate-friendly, 

or encourage climate action by others?; and  

2.  What kind of inspirational climate-related initiatives are you aware of?  

Both were open questions, to which 150 people responded. The responses were coded and analysed in ATLAS.ti. 

In regard to the first question, initiatives were categorized into eight categories (reducing emissions/pollution, 

education  and  research  and  innovation,  organisational  strategy/certificate,  policy,  networking,  climate 

investments,  personal  pledges  and  bottom-up  initiatives,  and  strike/activism)  and  coded  accordingly.  The 

category “reducing emissions/pollution” scored the highest (27%), followed by “education and research and 

innovation” (25%) and “organisational strategy/certificate” (19%) (Figure 4-3 ).  

99 

1%, 21%, 24%, 65%, 87%, 1216%, 2617%, 2824%, 4026%, 4305101520253035404550Lobbying associationEnvironmental organisationCitizenOtherAcademic/research institutionBusiness associationPublic authorityNGOCompany/business organisationWebinar participants replying in their professional capacity or other (n=167)  
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4-3 Webinar registration Question 1 responses 

The second question’s responses were coded by the climate-related initiatives listed by respondents, with “the 

Green  Deal”  scoring  the  highest  (53%) followed  by  Fridays  for  Future  (16%),  and  Covenant  of  Mayors  (16%) 

(Figure 4-4). 

Figure 4-4 Webinar registration Question 2 responses 

The webinar began at 13:30 and lasted two hours. The agenda is presented in Box 4-1 below.  

100 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Box 4-1 Overview of the agenda for the first webinar 

Agenda – Webinar 1 

13:30-14:00   Check-in (check-in question ‘What have you done for climate today?’) and plenary 

presentation about the Pact 

14:00-14:20   Breakout Room Session 1 

14:20-14:30   Plenary Summary – Sli.do exercise 

14:30-14:55   Breakout Room Session 2 

14:55-15:15   Plenary Summary – Sli.do exercise 

15:15-15:30   Plenary Q&A Session, Summary, Check-out 

At  the  start  of  the  webinar,  a  series  of  breakout  rooms  were  created,  and  participants  were  automatically 

assigned to a breakout room with the intention to have one facilitator in each room with six to eight participants. 

Facilitators  were  tasked  with  ensuring  a  constructive  conversation  on  the  Pact  and  guided  the  participants 

through two questions (one per breakout session):  

1.  What have you done for climate today? and  
2.  How can the EU Climate Pact help you work together on climate action initiatives?  

After each breakout session, the question discussed fed into a larger discussion utilising the webtool, Slido21, to 

capture participant sentiment and allow for participants to endorse each other’s submissions. Endorsements from 

others contributed to the scores shown in the table below (Table 4-1). The first Slido question, “How can the EU 

Climate Pact help you work together on climate action initiatives?”, aligns with Questions 27 and 39 ("How do 

you believe the Pact can best complement or scale-up existing initiatives and add value?" and “What would help 

you or your organisation to take more climate action/become more climate-friendly?", respectively) of the OPC 

questionnaire. “Financing cooperation is crucial. People have to make a living, they cannot often work for 

free!”  (score=9)  and  “By  providing  a  bottom-up  collaboration  platform  and  access  to  grants  or  simplified 

measure to receive grants for projects funding” (score=5) were two responses that were submitted through 

the Slido exercise and they  correspond to some answers provided in Questions 27 and 39 of the  consultation 

questionnaire. Namely, they  correspond to  “Provide  financial  incentive/support” (n=574, 16%) in Question 27 

and “Concrete support (including financial) or incentives to adopt more climate-friendly behaviours or practices” 

(n= 2,339, 67%) in Question 39.  

The role of the Pact to coordinate climate initiatives was also represented in the Slido exercise and responses 

to Question 27 the  consultation questionnaire. In Slido, the answer received the highest endorsement score of 

14,  while  in  Question  27  “coordinate/promote  existing  initiatives”  ranked  second  place  (n=477,  13%)  in 

responses. 

21 See https://www.sli.do/ for more information on the webtool. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4-1 Plenary summary Question 1 

How can the Pact help you work together on climate action initiatives? 

Responses introduced in Slido 

Endorsement 
score 

Assigning National Climate Pact Ambassador to coordinate initiatives within a country/region or 
European Ambassador to coordinate efforts in a specific sector 

14 

Financing cooperation is crucial. People have to make a living, they cannot often work for free! 

Bring the cultural and sport sector also into climate action. Culture is an important factor for 
societal change. 

Help share sustainable practices that have proven to be economically advantageous. Help dispel 
the myth that sustainability is expensive. 

Promoting the use of carbon footprints in products and services. Without the footprints, it would 
be too difficult for citizens to do rights choices. 

By providing a bottom-up collaboration platform and access to grants or simplified measure to 
receive grants for projects funding 

Host hackathons with front running NGO's, business and startups to help the Just Transition 
Regions between EU countries. 

Create a kind of repository of all initiatives (in clusters etc.) 

Building personal relationships is key -- so offer free webinars on specific topic exchange in a 
format like we are using now 

9 

9 

7 

6 

5 

5 

4 

4 

The second plenary question, “What could the Pact be for me?”, relates to Question 24 of the questionnaire, 

“What would you find useful under this platform?”. In Question 24,“listing of relevant events” (71%), “Online 

events” (67%), and “links to connect with like-minded people and organisations” (58%) were the most popular 

responses. These relate to the Slido responses “an aggregator and a resource for collaboration” (score=15), 

“cross-fertilisation of ideas and actions among different actors and different levels” (score=13), and “a place 

for companies and citizens to meet, and share best practices” (score=9) (Table 4-2).   

102 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 4-2 Plenary summary Question 2 

What could the Pact be for me? 

Responses introduced in Slido 

An aggregator and a resource for collaboration 

The Climate Pact is the opportunity for cross- fertilisation of ideas and actions among different 
Actors and different levels, in the spirit of transparency. 

A bridge to build back trust between citizens and institutions through regular conversations, 
shared resources and ambassadors to spread the word in MS. 

A place for companies and citizens to meet, and share best practices. 

Catalogue of best practices. 

Meaningful youth inclusion, support of grassroots movements, illuminating gaps in our seeing the 
system, indluding innovators, supporting improbable coreation. 

An overview of all major partnerships and organizations in Europe that work on climate action 
and where individuals or groups can join for action to multiply. 

An opportunity to engage different actors to work together towards decarbonisation highlighting 
also the role of innovation and technology. 

A real opportunity to bring democracy and citizens at the table and kick out some of the biggest 
climate offenders of the discussion 

Networking between stakeholders to leverage previously unconnected potentials and 
competences. 

Bring the latest science on climate in the debate to provide an evidence based foundation and a 
regularly updated scientific reference to the cooperation. 

Endorsement 
score 

15 

13 

12 

9 

9 

9 

9 

8 

8 

8 

8 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At the end of the webinar, participants were asked to complete a poll on how enthusiastic they were feeling 

about the EU Climate Pact. 36 participants answered the poll and the majority (42%) responded with a 10/10. 

The poll scored 8.6 overall (Figure 4-5). 

Figure 4-5 Screenshot of the closing poll 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2  Results of the second webinar 

The second webinar took place on the 14th of July, 2020. Like the first webinar, it was led and facilitated by the 

European Commission (department for Climate Action) via Zoom. All respondents to the consultation were invited 

to participate, and 463 people registered for the event. In terms of geographical representation, participants 

came from all over the world, with 32 participants originating from outside of the EU (Figure 4-6); however, most 

joined the webinar from countries within Europe. Germany was most represented (n=89, 19%) (as was the case 

in the OPC with 39%), followed by Belgium (n=71, 15%), France (n=51, 11%), Italy (n=44, 10%) and Spain (n=37, 

8%). Of those registered, there were 317 participants in the webinar. 

Figure 4-6 Countries of origin of participants 

Note: This figure was created using Excel, with a tool powered by Bing (© DSAT Editor, GeoNames). 

During registration participants were asked to specify  their sector of activity  (Figure 4-7). One third (32%) of 

participants selected “other” and then specified their response ( 

Figure  4-8),  with  most  associating  with  advocacy  (11%)  and  conservation  (8%).  Of  the  predefined  sectors, 

education/training  (20%)  received  the  largest  representation  (similar  to  the  OPC,  where  23%  of  respondents 

belonged to this sector).  

105 

Germany, 89, 19%France, 51, 11%Belgium, 71, 15%Italy, 44, 10%Spain, 37, 8%Netherlands, 17, 4%Portugal, 21, 5%Finland, 11, 2%Austria, 6, 1%Poland, 15, 3%Czechia, 6, 1%Romania, 10, 2%Hungary, 6, 1%Ireland, 4, 1%Sweden, 7, 2%Greece, 7, 2%Slovakia, 2, 0%Denmark, 4, 1%Bulgaria, 4, 1%Croatia, 3, 1%Estonia, 3, 1%Lithuania, 2, 0%Cyprus, 1, 0%Malta, 4, 1%Non-EU (n=32):•Argentina, 1, 0%•Brazil, 2, 0%•Canada, 1, 0%•Georgia, 1, 0%•Ghana, 1, 0%•India, 1, 0%•Indonesia, 2, 0%•Mexico, 2, 0%•Nigeria, 2, 0%•Pakistan, 1, 0%•Republic ofNorthMacedonia, 1, 0%•Serbia, 2, 0%•Switzerland, 4, 1%•Tanzania, 1, 0%•Turkey, 2, 0%•Ukraine, 1, 0%•United Kingdom, 7, 2%Participant country of origin (n=463) –at registrationLatvia, 2, 0%Slovenia, 2, 0%Luxembourg, 1, 0% 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4-7 Webinar 2 participant sector of activity 

Figure 4-8 Webinar 2 participant "other" sector of activity breakdown 

Note: A threshold of five or more for a given sector was applied. 

The second webinar began at 16:00 and lasted 2 hours. The agenda is presented in Box 2 below: 

106 

1%, 71%, 82%, 122%, 144%, 224%, 245%, 285%, 285%, 285%, 317%, 397%, 4120%, 11932%, 189Real Estate, Renting and BusinessActivitiesActivities of Private Households asEmployersConsumers associationExtraterritorial Organisations andBodiesConstructionManufacturingTransport, Storage andCommunicationsOther Community, Social andPersonal Services Wholesale and…Electricity, Gas and Water SupplyHealth and Social WorkAgriculture, Hunting and ForestryFinancial Intermediation FishingPublic Administration and DefenceEducation/trainingOther3%, 54%, 64%, 74%, 75%, 98%, 1311%, 18StudentIT/engineeringConsultingYouthSportsConservationAdvocacy 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 4-2 Overview of the agenda for the second webinar 

Agenda – Webinar 2 

16.00 -16.10 

Check-in, Welcome 

16:10 – 16:30 

Presentation of the EU Climate Pact 

16:30 – 16.35 

Process presentation + going to breakout 

16:35 – 17:15 

Breakout room  

17:15 – 17:45 

Plenary Summary 

17:45 17:55 

Q&A Session 

Much  like  the  first  webinar,  a  series  of  breakout  rooms  were  created,  and  participants  were  automatically 

assigned to a breakout room with the intention to have one facilitator in each room with six to eight participants. 

The breakout rooms were organised around 9 thematic topics:  

1.  Charter of the Pact 
2.  Storyline of the Pact 
3.  #EUClimatePact Ambassadors 
4.  Individual pledges 
5.  Organisational pledges 
6.  Knowledge sharing, including thematic webinars 
7.  Support offered by the Pact 
8.  Climate education 
9.  Other potential actions within the Pact 

Multiple  breakout  room  groups  were  created  under  each  topic,  according  to  the  registration  form  where 

participants were asked for their preference of thematic topic. Participants were also given the opportunity to 

change their thematic topic during the webinar, by changing their name in Zoom with the topic number in front 

of  their  name.  Facilitators  were  tasked  with  ensuring  a  constructive  conversation  on  the  Pact,  guide  the 

participants through the thematic theme of the breakout room and harvest the conversation in a standardized 

harvesting sheet. Due to the large size of participation in the webinar, facilitators comprised of both EU officials 

and participants who volunteered during registration to assist. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4-9 Graphical harvest of the 9 thematic topics 

Topic 1: Charter of the Pact 

There were four groups assigned under Topic 1: Charter of the Pact with roughly 7 participants to each group. 

The harvesting sheet provided 5 questions (Figure 4-11) which were discussed in the breakout room session.  

Figure 4-10 Questions under Topic 1: Charter of the Pact 

108 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
When  asked  which  values  were  most  important  to  the  Pact  (ambition,  transparency,  participation, 

inclusiveness), participants from all four groups mentioned inclusiveness most frequently (which interestingly 

enough  was  supported  by  only  46%  of  respondents  in  Q28  of  the  OPC  questionnaire,  while  ‘ambition’  and 

‘transparency’ were more popular (62%)). One participant mentioned structuring the Pact bottom-up to facilitate 

this inclusiveness, while another participant from a different group provided a contrasting opinion that the Pact 

needs to be horizontal to do so.  

Participants were also asked “who should be able to join the Pact?”. The majority answered that everyone, 

with  one  group  noting  “can  an  inclusive  Pact  exclude  someone?”.  Another  group  said  that  people  should  be 

prioritised first, organisations and corporations second. Participants also reinforced the notion of inclusivity 

and most groups pointed  out that  corporations should be held to a higher standard of pledge commitment 

than  individuals.  One  group  introduced  the  idea  of  a  committee  for  applicants  as  a  solution  to  avoid 

greenwashing, which was a concern consistent across most groups. 

When  asked  “On  what  rules  can  people  and  organisations  join  the  Pact?”,  the  discussions  revolved  around 

commitments,  with  idea  that  pledges  should  have  a  one-year  commitment  receiving  the  most  traction. 

Participants also discussed rules that could prohibit green washing in the Pact, and one participant suggested 

pledges  should  have  specific goals  for  organisations  to  adhere  to  avoid  counting  non-impactful  activities  as  a 

pledge. Due to the limited time allotted to the breakout room sessions, participants across the four groups had 

less input for the final two questions. In response to, “Are there any remaining questions”, one participant asked, 

“how  can  the  environment  be  mainstreamed  in  the  Pact?”,  another  asked  “if  it  is  sufficient  to  focus  on 

individual  responsibility”.  Finally,  when  asked  “what  would  be  an  easy  next  step  that  you  could  do?”,  one 

participant stated that they would like to follow up on the results of the breakout rooms, and another asked 

to see a draft of the Pact’s charter. There was a general interest in keeping involved with the Pact. 

Topic 2: Storyline of the Pact 

There were two groups of participants assigned to Topic 2 (one group of 8 and one of 6). The participants were 

asked 4 questions during the breakout session.  

Figure 4-11 Questions under Topic 2: Storyline of the Pact 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
When asked “If you were to explain to your mother in 1 minute what the European Climate Pact is, why it is 

needed and what everyone can do – what words would you use?”. The majority of respondents across the groups 

made statements about aligning everyone to fight climate change. A just transition was talked about and one 

participant noted, “We must not forget that climate change is not lived by everyone the same, and that as we 

move towards an economic crisis the objectives of vulnerable people (people of colour, disabled; youth; women) 

[must  be  heard]”,  this  was  mirrored  by  the  other  group  which  stated  “Fairness  needs  to  be  linked  to  the 

transition”.  Respondents  also  stated that the Pact  is  about  encouraging  active  and  engaged  citizens.   While 

many talked about the aspirational goal of working towards a better future, there was also a general sentiment 

that practical approaches to affect change were needed to get there. 

In discussions about the “key messages of the Pact”, one respondent mentioned using a unified approach, which 

was expanded upon by another participant to get everyone on board to fight climate change. Finally, a third 

respondent said empowerment of citizens should be the key message. When asked, “Would you rather use a 

scary ‘let’s save humanity’ narrative or a positive ‘we can do this’ narrative, or both? What are the words/phrases 

to avoid?”, a positive narrative was mentioned by one participant. Another contrasted this and said both, to 

show  urgency  and  provide  solutions.  Urgency  was  further  echoed  by  another  participant  who  stated  the 

COVID19 Crisis is a lesson to act early or pay a larger price later. When participants were given the opportunity 

to ask  any remaining questions, one participant asked  if the EU would end fossil fuel subsides, and another 

asked if there will be a carbon labelling scheme to help consumers make informed choices. 

Topic 3: #EUClimatePact Ambassadors 

The participants in the groups under Topic 3 were asked 5 questions about the main elements and principles of 

becoming a Pact Ambassador. There were 7 groups all together, with 7-10 people in each group. Of all topics, 

this received the most participation. In general, participants were enthusiastic about the prospect of becoming 

a Pact Ambassador and were interested in the role and responsibility of Ambassadors, and the type of support 

Ambassadors will receive. 

Figure 4-12: Questions under Topic 3: #EUClimatePact Ambassadors 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
When participants were asked “why would you want to become an ambassador?”, the most common responses 

were about peer-learning and awareness raising, as well as networking opportunities, and to become a bridge 

between policy makers and citizens. In discussions on “who can become an Ambassador and on what rules?”, 

several participants stated that Ambassadors should demonstrate long-term commitment to the role, and that 

organisations as well as individuals should be able to become Ambassadors. The webinar allowed for an open 

and qualitative discussion about ambassadors and their role; whereas in the OPC, respondents strongly agreed 

with scientists and experts as being the most ambassadors (74%). 

In  terms of the roles and functions that Ambassadors should have, one group stated that Ambassadors should 

work at the country level and across sectors to communicate, educate, reduce complexity and promote action. 

It  was  also  mentioned  that  a  team  is  needed  for  ambassadors,  to  be  able  to  collaborate  and  communicate 

effectively. Aside from awareness raising, several groups mentioned that Ambassadors should be tasked with 

reporting and gathering information. There was also a suggestion that there should be various ambassador 

profiles  for  people  with  different  interests  and  expertise.  This  was  supported  by  a  different  group  who 

envisioned ambassadors having various tracks or thematic areas that they can pursue. In general, participants 

were  concerned  with  balancing  the  responsibility  of  Pact Ambassadors,  as  in  not  too  arduous  in  its  roles  and 

responsibilities  that  it  prohibits  people  from  applying,  while  at  the  same  time  maintaining  a  high  bar  for 

applicants and specific guidelines so that Ambassadors are consistently impactful in their role.  

Participants  remaining  questions  included,  “what  are  Ambassadors  going  to  do  and  what  support  will  the 

receive to facilitate that objective?”, and one participant asked how long the mandate of Ambassadors would 

last, and another asked if there will be a cap on the number of ambassadors from the same Member State or 

region.  

Topic 4: Individual Pledges 

There were three groups of participants under Topic 4. This group was invited to think of a list of climate pledges 

individuals can make for the Pact, as well as consider the practical aspects concerning submitting and monitoring 

pledge progress. Each group had roughly 6-9 participants.  

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4-13: Questions under Topic 4: Individual pledges 

When asked “what is an individual pledge? What could the pledges be about?”, each group addressed examples 

of climate friendly behaviour and sustainable consumption. One particularly ambitious group created a list of 20 

different pledges that individuals could take: 

1.  Eat for a more stable planet 
2.  Avoid food waste 
3.  Bike more, walk more and use public transportation 
4.  Build knowledge, stay informed and up to speed based on scientific evidence and authoritative sources 

of information  

5.  Calculate your carbon footprint 
6.  Do not own a car 
7.  Embark  in  climate  conversations  with  other  individuals  to  increase  their  environmental  footprint 

awareness  

Insulate your home to reduce the need of heating or cooling 

8.  Go plastic-free (avoid straw consumption) 
9. 
10.  Flight less and take trains to cover long distance journey whenever possible 
11.  Change your lightbulbs to more efficient ones 
12.  Power your house with renewable energy (solar, wind) 
13.  Reuse/repair more and buy less (especially clothes – use second hand, vintage items) 
14.  Eliminate your junk/spam e-mail boxes to free up space at data centres 
15.  Plant trees where you can 
16.  Save water at home (processing clean water takes energy) 
17.  Recycle properly 
18.  Switch off appliances after using them 
19.  Wash clothes on a full load 
20.  Participate to ecological days to clean lands, parks, beaches  

112 

 
 
 
 
In  general  participants  felt  that  pledges  should  be  concrete  actions  that  are  achievable.  Participants  further 

elaborated this by asking for quantitative metrics for pledges wherever possible, and one group mentioned the 

SMART principle, which is: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bounded. Two groups added 

that pledges should also factor place and local context, as certain actions in one region may not be possible in 

others. One group also envisioned a catalogue of action connected with information about expected impact 

of each action.  

When asked how the process of committing to a pledge should look like, several groups suggested an app for 

tracking progress and sharing achievements. This was further expanded upon by three groups who suggested 

gamification  for  motivating  others  to  make  a  pledge  and  to  incentivise  self-reporting  for  monitoring  pledge 

progress. Participants also suggested a tiered system of pledges, with more difficult to achieve pledges receiving 

recognition  through  the  Pact  platform.  Several  participants  felt  it  was  necessary  to  provide  information  on 

available financial support that can help citizens achieve their pledges (e.g. incentives for weather-proofing a 

house). Remaining questions from participants were focused on how formalised the process of pledging will be, 

if there will be official certificates or other acknowledgments. 

Topic 5: Organisational Pledges 

Under Topic 5, there were 2 groups of 8 and 9 participants, respectively. Similar to Topic 4, participants were 

asked to think of a list of climate pledges and mechanisms for submission and monitoring for private, public, 

academic and non-governmental organisations.  

Figure 4-14: Questions under Topic 5: Organisational Pledges 

In discussions over what an organisational pledge could be, group one determined that any organisations can 

pledge, and their pledge should reflect that organisation’s capacity to impact the climate (this mirrored Q34 

responses, in which the majority of respondents thought that reporting requirements of pledges should be 

linked to the emission levels of an organisation). They further explained that organisational pledges should not 

be  from  a  prescribed  list,  but  instead  tailor  made  to  that  organisation.  They  also  felt  that  it  was  key  to  be 

transparent  in  pledges  to  avoid  greenwashing.  The  other  group  gave  an  example  of what  their  organisation 

could pledge: The PRE (Plastics Recyclers of Europe) could pledge to reduce CO2 emissions in their industry AND 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
to  increase  the  plastic  recycling  quotas:  “We  pledged  to  provide  10  million  tonnes  of  recyclates    in  plastic 

products  by  2025.”.  Participants  also  listed  cuts  to  CO2  in  production  streams  and  advocating  circular 

principles  as  types  of  pledges  manufacturing  organisations  could  make.  They  also  felt  non-manufacturing 

organisations could reduce their carbon footprint and promote awareness on climate issues.  

In terms of monitoring, only one group managed to discuss this issue, and they felt that reporting could either 

go directly to the Pact, or to their respective business associations. Participants also suggested that the EU 

could provide tax incentives for climate neutral behaviour through the Pact. Participants didn’t have follow 

up  questions,  however  one  group  was  quite  enthusiastic  about  the  discussions  and  shared  their  contact 

information amongst each other to continue the conversation after the Webinar. 

Topic 6: Knowledge sharing, including thematic webinars 

Participant groups  in Topic 6 were tasked with discussing the  design concept of thematic webinars and other 

knowledge sharing activities under the Pact. There were 3 groups of 6 to 8 participants. 

Figure 4-15: Questions under Topic 6: Knowledge sharing, including thematic webinars 

When asked “What topics would be interesting for you to share knowledge on during a webinar?”, participants 

from all three groups provided the following topics:  

1.  Agriculture 
2.  Water management 
3.  Climate-neutral infrastructure 
4.  Energy efficiency 
5.  The renewable energy transition 
6.  Energy economics 
7.  Circular economy 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.  Climate Change science 
9.  Climate policy 
10.  Lifestyle (how to reduce your carbon footprint) 

In  terms  of  needs,  one  group  asked  if  the  webinars  would  be  region  specific,  both  in  terms  of  context  and 

language. Two groups stated that a web-based platform for webinars was necessary. As well as guidelines for 

communication, and communication channels to promote knowledge sharing events. One group mentioned 

that communication between participants and decision makers is needed.  

Participants felt that the webinars should be tailored to the groups they are addressing. They explained that 

webinars  must  first  define  the  objective,  then  define  the  target  group,  and  finally  define  the  method  of 

communication. Participants were also worried that the platform could be abused by those with extreme views 

and should be protected from this.  Other knowledge sharing activities that were brainstormed included sharing 

case studies on the platform of success and failures, challenges and how to overcome them.  

In the remaining questions, one group asked, “In case local/ small-scale good projects arise from the life-style-

related topics webinars, will the EU enable funding of this project?”. 

Topic 7: Support offered by the Pact 

There were three groups of 7 to 10 participants under Topic 7. The groups were asked to discuss the various 

types of support the Pact could offer, and the delivery mechanisms this support should take. 

In  response  to  the  question,  “What  kind  of  EU  support  would  be  needed  to  help  boost  grass  root  climate 

initiatives?”, the groups were mostly aligned in their answers. Each group provided detailed lists of the types of 

support they envisioned, including: 

1.  Easy, straightforward application process 
2.  Technical assistance and project development assistance 
3.  Financial support for small projects 
4.  Access to a network of potential collaborators or role models 
5.  Marketing activities 
6.  A database of supported organisations/individuals  

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Information in all EU languages 

7.  Knowledge transfer, including skills sharing and training 
8. 
9.  Support to SME innovation 
10.  Capacity building for youth 
11.  Map of active organisations 

In terms of the rules for distributing financial support, participants from one group warned against unfocused 

spreading of financial resources. Instead, they thought funding should be tied to  actionable initiatives with 

measurable outputs. Another group thought of a funding platform with all available funding opportunities are 

presented. There was also talk about funding rural area initiatives through the Pact. One practical suggestion 

was to analyse the funding gaps in LIFE and Horizon 2020 and try to cover those areas. Participants also felt 

the  Pact  should  encourage  private  sector  investments  for  grassroot  projects.  Participants  emphasised  small 

grants as having a large impact on local groups, student associations and youth organisations. There was also 

mention of a competition for innovative ideas that could award small grants.  

In cases of other support, participants across groups mentioned creating a database to host project information, 

eligibility  guidelines,  networking  contacts,  and  education  and  knowledge  sharing.  Participants’  remaining 

questions  were  focused  on  how  to  harmonise  the  Pact  with  other  existing  European  programs  to  provide 

financing, and what the legal status requirements were for applicants (association, company, etc.). 

Topic 8: Climate Education 

There were 5 groups of around 7 to 11 participants each under Topic 8. The groups were asked questions regarding 

how the Pact can provide education and training related to climate change issues. 

Figure 4-16: Questions under Topic 8: Climate education 

When asked, “What do you feel is missing in the existing climate education projects that you are aware of?”, 

participants  across the groups responded that funding is missing, as well as the promotion for projects. The 

majority of participants in one group said they were not aware of any climate education projects, and thus felt 

communication of these projects could be improved. Another group felt that young people should be connected 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
with  climate  experts  through  a  mentorship  programme.  Several  groups  felt  that  workshops,  trainings,  and 

seminars  were  all  worthwhile  to  include  in  the  Pact  as  awareness  raising  and  training  tools.  This  included 

suggestions to fund regular guest speakers at schools, universities, and companies.  

The participants saw education programmes as a means to give individual the tools to make a positive impact, 

and to increase awareness of sustainability in society. One group also mentioned education for businesses to 

integrate  sustainability  into  their  decisions  making.  For  tools  to  enable  education  in  the  Pact,  participants 

recommended a data portal to find data on your individual impact. Participants generally agreed that the EU, 

and national and regional governments need to encourage and facilitate education.  

In regard to remaining questions, one group asked how the Pact could educate people from home (labelling on 

products, media, online resources, etc.).   

Topic 9: Other potential actions within the Pact, Initiatives shared by participants 

Through the chat of the Webinar, and in the harvesting, sheets provided by facilitators, several initiatives were 

suggested by participants. Table 4-4 lists those below. 

Table 4-3 List of relevant initiatives suggested by participants 

Name 

CO2 Rechner 

sitoumus2050 

GNDE 

Link 

https://uba.co2-rechner.de  

https://sitoumus2050.fi/en/lifestyles#/  

https://report.gndforeurope.com/ 

EU4Environment 

https://www.oecd.org/site/eu4environment/ 

Renaissance ecologique 

www.renaissanceecologique.fr  

My blue planet 

Milieucentraal 

Comptecarbone 

www.myblueplanet.ch  

www.milieucentraal.nl  

www.comptecarbone.org/en-gb  

Earth Tribe by WOSM 

https://earthtribe.scout.org/ 

100-100-100 

Jugend akademie 

Climate-Science 

Collaction 

www.100-100-100.nl  

www.jugendakademie.de/english/  

www.climate-science.com  

www.collaction.org/  

Klimaat Gesprekken 

www.klimaatgesprekken.nl/  

Zapp 

www.zapp.nl/programmas/zapp-your-planet  

5  Summary and analysis of Open Public 
Consultation attachments and other relevant 
position papers 

• 

• 

Key Messages 

101 papers have been identified and analysed; 

The papers underlined the importance of additional information sharing and provided a 

range of ideas on types of information needed to support pledges and wider climate 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
action. In particular, information on how to access financial support to help transition to 

low carbon economy and a more systematic approach as to how this information is shared; 

The papers presented a positive opinion of the role pledges can play in driving climate 

action, specifically in acting as an umbrella initiative to inspire local action and ensure 

inclusive policy making; 

The papers highlighted collaboration between different actors as critical to the Pact and 

indeed achieving wider climate objectives. Authors provided a range of ideas and 

suggestions regarding how collaboration could be structured and governed and highlighted 

that a wide-range of stakeholders should be involved. In particular open multi-stakeholder 

platforms were identified as key to promote collaboration; 

The papers also reported that the Pact could foster new and complement existing 

initiatives, in particular facilitating carbon neutral strategies to be developed in different 

• 

• 

• 

sectors.  

Alongside completing the open public consultation questionnaire, stakeholders could also submit position papers 

or other attachments. This section presents analysis of all documents attached to the consultation responses. In 

addition, the analysis has been supplemented with further sources external to the consultation: these sources 

considered  the  Pact  but  were  found  separately  online  and  not  formally  submitted  through  the  open  public 

consultation.  The  open  public  consultation  submission  papers  and  papers  sourced  externally  include:  position 

papers, presentations, letters, press release, among others (the selection process and methodology behind the 

analysis can be found in Chapter 2).  

5.1 

Description of papers 

To facilitate the analysis, we filtered the papers into different groups. One of the filters grouped papers whose 

titles contained either: “European Climate Pact”, “European Green Deal”, or neither of these. The next filter 

grouped the papers by the number of pages: less than 3, less than  10 but at least 3, and more than 10. This 

provided insight into the depth and relevance of the papers.  

Most of the papers were between 3-9 pages long and did not contain either “European Climate Pact” or “European 

Green  Deal”  in  the  title.  The  short  length  of  the  papers  could  be  due  to  the  limited  amount  of  information 

available concerning the Pact and clarity from the Commission regarding Pact activities. The lack of papers with 

“European Climate Pact” in the title could be due to the goals being less tangible and more broad than the Green 

Deal  goals,  potentially  leading  papers  to  provide  information  and  opinion  relevant  to  the  Pact  but  being  less 

likely to have the Pact as the sole focus of the discussion. 

Table 5-1 Papers analysed: Description of papers 

European Climate Pact Papers 

Title contains: 

Number of pages: 

European Climate Pact 

< 3 

3 - 9 

> 10 

Average number of pages 

Grand Total 

3.0% 

9.9% 

1.0% 

4.6 

14 

European Green 
Deal 
7.9% 

18.8% 

5.9% 

7.1 

33 

Other 

21.8% 

18.8% 

12.9% 

10.4 

54 

Total 

32.7% 

47.5% 

19.8% 

101 

5.2 

Regional (country-based) analysis 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Of the papers analysed, most have come from the EU as a whole (i.e. responses represented a pan-EU response 

and the author was not specific to an individual country), accounting for 67 papers. The rest of the papers were 

authored  by  actors  associated  to  specific  countries  throughout  Europe,  and  six  presented  an  international 

perspective.  There  is  a  low  representation  for  southern  and  eastern  European  countries,  despite  additional 

research activities undertaken by the project team in an attempt to source more information and opinion from 

these countries which successfully improved the representation relative to the initial sample. A summary of the 

country representation of papers analysed is shown in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-2 Papers analysed: Country split 

Country 

EU 

Belgium 

International 

Germany 

UK 

Ireland 

France 

Finland 

Bulgaria 

Slovenia 

Netherlands 

Czechia 

Spain 

Denmark 

Cyprus 

Belgium, Germany, UK 

Grand Total 

Count 

66 

7 

6 

5 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

101 

The distribution of all papers is included in Annex B.3.  

5.3 

Key outcomes 

5.3.1.1  What information would best help you achieve the goals of the Climate Pact? And which channels for 

this information? 

The papers reviewed highlighted a range of different information which would help achieve the goals of the Pact. 

Of the 45 papers that gave an insight to necessary information, 38% highlighted the importance of being informed 

of how to access financial support to help transition to low carbon economy, and all of these papers called for 

a more systematic approach as to how information on financial support is shared. These papers mainly came 

from NGOs, academic and research institutions, and business associations. 9% (of the  45 papers) believe that 

information on best practices, including real-world examples, would help them achieve the goals of the Climate 

Pact.  7%  (of  the  45  papers)  noted  clear  information  regarding  regulatory  and  policy  frameworks  to  support 

research and innovation would be important. A number of other papers suggested that sharing information as to 

how smaller businesses can transition to cleaner vehicles or receive support in reskilling their workforce are 

important complementary initiatives to support broader changes made. 

5.3.2 

How important is this information in achieving Climate Pact goals referred to in   

5.3.1?  

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Only  nine  of  the  analysed  papers  explicitly  referred  to  how  important  information  identified  in  5.3.1  is  to 

achieving  the  Pact  goals.  However,  given  around  half  of stakeholders  noted  some  form  of  information  would 

support the achievement of the objectives required, this in itself suggests the dissemination of information will 

be an important objective of the Pact. Those who explicitly discussed the importance of information came from 

a  business  associations,  company/business  organisations  and  public  authorities,  and  all  agreed  on  the  high 

importance  of  information  (albeit  different  types).  Glass  for  Europe  suggested  that  information  on  industrial 

strategies for decarbonizing the building sector is very important. A joint paper from the International Council 

for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), Eurelectric, European Forum of Technical and Vocational Education 

and  Training  (EFVET),  Earlall,  European  Regions  Research  and  Innovation  Network  (ERRIN),  EnergyCities  and 

EuroCities set out their opinion that information on best practices is very important with a separate paper from 

ERRIN also asking for examples. A number of these papers believed that information on proposed and existing 

initiatives was very important. 

5.3.3 

How could the Pact encourage concrete pledges and commitments for climate action? 

36 of the papers analysed referred to the effect pledges can have on climate action, which came from a mix of 

all the stakeholders. These papers supported the idea that pledges can have a positive impact on climate action 

by enabling more ambitious climate goals, recognising climate action beyond the activities undertaken by public 

bodies  and  bringing  about  a  change  in  behaviour.  To  monitor  the  success  of  pledges,  the  European  Climate 

Foundation suggested making periodic assessments of emerging trends to provide a benchmark. Other papers (8% 

of the 36 papers) noted the positive impact that inclusive policy making at an EU level would inspire others to 

follow the example, in particular the Climate Pact could act as an umbrella initiative to inspire local actions.  

5.3.4 

How can the Pact give everyone a voice and space to design new climate actions? 

Of the 34 analysed papers that gave suggestions on how the Pact can be implemented to give everyone a voice, 

30% said mass information dissemination activities can help create multiple platforms for all citizens to submit 

their opinions. A number of these mentioned using social media as well as dedicated web-based resources. Two 

of  the  papers  mentioned  Loire  Central-Val  Regions  Conference  of  Parties  (COP)  activities,  implementing  a 

permanent regional democratic approach to involve and support their society in the climate transition, as a good 

example. A number of papers said that these platforms need to make sure they are inclusive and representative 

of populations, this can be done by monitoring the stakeholders involved and comparing to already known census 

data. A number of papers highlighted investment in education, such as upskilling, as important, enabling more 

citizens to actively engage in existing initiatives. 

5.3.5 

How can the Pact specifically support zero-energy buildings, green mobility, and tree-planting? 

19  of  the  papers  analysed  discussed  initiatives  to  support  zero-energy  buildings,  green  mobility,  and  tree-

planting.  21%  of these papers  stated  that  effective  conversations  within  forums  and  consultation  groups  can 

lead  to  the  development  of  best  practice  and  effective  environmental  regulations.  The  papers  specifically 

highlight that this can be effective in the planning, construction, and transport sectors. 5% of the papers suggest 

that the Pact should identify and promote synergies within European partnerships developed under Horizon 

2020. 

5.3.6 

How  can  the  Climate  Pact  promote  and  support  new  and  existing  initiatives  and  pledges/action 

implementation? 

Several ways in which the Climate Pact can promote and support existing initiatives have been identified from 

52 of the analysed position papers. 15% of these papers suggested that the collaborative nature of the Pact will 

enable initiatives to develop, whilst retaining a focus towards a common goal. 8% of these papers also stated 

that  successes  in  carbon  reduction  can  be  shared  and  used  to  inform  future  policy  and  regulation  to  steer 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
polluters  towards  best practice,  12%  said  that  the  use  of  forums  and  tools  to  facilitate  sharing  will  also  be 

useful for policy maker and project financers. 17% of these papers noted that mapping and connecting existing 

initiatives would help reinforce them and ensure joint work towards a common goal.  

5.3.7 

Which existing relevant initiatives should the Pact build on and link to? 

22  of  the  analysed  papers  suggested  a  large  selection  of  existing  initiatives/policies  as  key  foundations  to 

developing the Pact. The most frequently mentioned initiative (in 23% of papers) was The Covenant of Mayors.“” 

Other  initiatives  mentioned  less  frequently  included:  LEADER  (Liaison  Entre  Actions  de  Développement  de 

l'Économie Rurale), the European pillar of social rights, Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 

the conference on the Future for Europe, European Green Deal (EGD), Farm to Fork (F2F), EU’s Biodiversity 

Strategy 2030, Forest Strategy, Zero Pollution Action Plan and New Circular Economy Package and the Planet 

Alliance. 

5.3.8 

How can the Pact promote collaboration and exchange? 

56 of the analysed papers gave suggestions for promoting collaboration and exchange, suggesting a wide range 

of stakeholders who would add value through their involvement and suggesting a range of methods of exchange. 

Setting up forums, boards, dedicated web-based resources and using social media platforms was a common 

theme amongst the papers (33%), with a number also commenting that these conversations should be accessible 

and  transparent.  A  strategy  identified  by  two  of  the  analysed  position  papers  consists  of  designing  an  open 

multi-stakeholder  platform.  These  platforms  should  be  organised  to  find  solutions  and  best  practices  in 

Member States to respond to challenges in different sectors at the EU level. One paper suggested monitoring 

of platforms to ensure  inclusive participation. A secondary trend (noted in 20% of the 56 papers) highlighted 

increasing access to information and opportunities to develop skills and engage in sustainable projects as critical 

to promoting collaboration (highlighting the link between different components of the Pact).  

5.3.9 

Which relevant approaches will have the most significant impact? 

55 of the position papers analysed identified strategies that can have the most impact to achieve the goals of 

the European Climate Pact. 7% of position papers highlighted the importance of supporting a circular economy 

through stakeholder engagement and dissemination of information activities as a key strategy, given the potential 

of a circular economy to achieve emission reductions. Another 7% of papers analysed also focused on the need 

to encourage new sources of funding, from the public and private sector, as well as provide easily accessible 

information  on  this  funding  to  catalyse  the  low  carbon  transition  and  support  research  and  innovation.  The 

relevance of a just transition was also identified by another 9% of the papers. One paper also highlighted the 

importance of giving citizens an active role. Other strategies identified as important by the papers included 

adopting sector-specific strategies for decarbonisation (13%); supporting climate adaptation (4%) and promoting 

action (24%). 

5.4 

Stakeholder-level analysis 

Most  of  the  papers  analysed  have  come  from  business  associations,  accounting  for  32%  of  the  total.  Non-

governmental organisations (NGOs) were the next most represented of the papers analysed, making up 17%. 

The  rest  were  submitted  by  a  mix  of  academic/research 

institutions,  (NGOs)  public  authorities, 

company/business organisations, EU citizens, environmental organisations, trade unions and others. A summary 

of stakeholder groups from the papers analysed is given in Table 5-3. 

Table 5-3 Papers analysed: Stakeholder type 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stakeholder group 

Business association  

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)  

Public authority 

Academic/research institution 

Other 

Company/business organisation  

Environmental organisation  

EU citizen 

Trade union 

Grand Total 

Count 

32 

17 

13 

12 

10 

7 

5 

4 

1 

101 

The distribution of all papers is included in Annex B.2. 

5.4.1 

Academic/research institution  

12 of the papers analysed came from academic/research institutions.  

In  one  paper,  E3G  (an  economics  based  think  tank)  set  out  that  citizens  should  have  a  more  active  role  in 

transition to a zero carbon economy, as they will focus on making a liveable environment fit for themselves. 

The Pact can encourage this active role by providing citizens with opportunities for communication. E3G also 

highlighted the need for investment in energy efficient housing and suggested that decentralised renewables 

would enable citizens and communities to own a stake in  the energy  markets. E3G published  a second  paper 

stating the importance of governance tools, such as the Covenant of Mayors, and how they can help promote 

collaboration  by  building  on  existing  structures  and  reinforcing  them  by  linking  them  together.  These  papers 

highlighted a focus on redesigning markets and policies to promote the active role of citizens. 

The Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI), representing the forest fibre and paper industry, believe 

that  recyclable  and  bio-based  products  will  have  the  greatest  impact  on  environmental  emissions.  Recycling 

inherently helps with creating a circular economy which this paper and other stakeholder22 saw as important. 

The  author  highlighted  that  a  clear  regulatory  framework  would  assist  companies  in  using  more  recycled 

materials  and  recycling  waste  materials.  Promoting  collaboration  with  production  companies  and  product 

designers  will  also  promote  the  use  of  recycled  and  recyclable  materials.  CEPI  have  also  released  their  own 

recyclability guidelines so designers can ensure functionality goes hand in hand with recyclability. 

Three of the papers submitted by academic or research institutions focused on decarbonisation. The Buildings 

Performance Institute Europe, a non-profit research facility, highlighted that social mechanisms and financing 

models  need  to  ensure  tenants  do  not  get  priced  out  of  their  homes  due  to  rent  increases  so  collaboration 

between  tenants  and  building  companies  would  be  beneficial.  EIT  climate-KIC,  an  innovation  community 

focusing on a circular zero carbon economy, recommended citizen engagement and regulatory frameworks as 

a  means  to  accelerate  decarbonisation,  with  a  focus  on  both  mitigation  and  adaption  measures.  The  paper 

released  by  Wyns,  T.  and  G.  Khandekar  focused  on  the  industrial  sector  and  particularly  energy  intensive 

industries.  They  recommend  the  development  of  innovation  hubs  to  create  low  carbon  energy  systems  that 

synergise with industry. 

22 Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Open Society European Policy Institute published a paper that recommended the use of assemblies to engage 

citizens and give them a voice. They believe the Climate Pact and the transition to low-carbon economies and 

societies should be fully integrated into the discussions that will be part of the Conference on the Future of 

Europe.  They  also  believe  there  should  be  transparent,  inclusive,  and  participatory  approaches  and 

methodologies  to  include  civil  society  (including  local  actors)  in  policy-making  processes  at  all  levels  of 

government. 

5.4.2 

Business association  

32 of the papers analysed came from business associations.  

Ten  papers  discussed  decarbonisation.  The  European  Asphalt  Pavement  Association  believe  collaboration 

between road designers and material specialists will reduce emissions from cars on the road through decreasing 

rolling  resistance  and  through  decarbonising  the  products  used  to  create  the  roads.  Two  papers  came  from 

Eurelectric,  one  proposed  spreading  information  on  available  funding  programmes,  especially  to  those  most 

affected, would be key to avoiding inequality and increasing the acceptance of decarbonisation. The other paper 

set out the belief that the industry is already committed to delivering carbon neutral power well before 2050. 

Similar  to  an  academic  paper23,  the  Finnish  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  the  European  Regions  Research  and 

Innovation Network (ERRIN) believe collaboration is essential to reach carbon neutrality and mobilising different 

actors will help, as well as ensuring local  ownership. ERRIN also believe that the Climate Pact  should create 

multiple new forums that allow innovators and stakeholders an opportunity to share information, identify gaps 

and promote initiatives. They recommended utilising all social media platforms and creating a dedicated web-

based resource.  

Three  of  these  papers  focused  on  the  building  sector,  specifically  renovations,  to  combat  climate  change. 

European  Alliance  of  Companies  for  Energy  Efficiency  in  Buildings  (EuroACE)  suggested  an  open  platform  for 

stakeholders as a strategy to promote collaboration along with strategies to raise awareness of the potential 

emissions  reductions  through  renovations24.  The  paper  released  from  a  group  of  energy  based  business 

associations,  including  EuroACE,  E3G,  Energy  Cities  and  more,  stated  that  at  the  beginning  of  2021  all  new 

buildings must reach nearly zero energy performance. They noted that extra information on product construction 

is important, so accurate life cycle assessments can be made.  

Another of these papers came from Glass for Europe, an association of glass SMEs across Europe, focused on glass 

as  the  material  to  improve  efficiency  in  building  renovations.  They  stated  that  the  technology  is  already 

available  and  only  requires  necessary  information  to  be  shared  with  producers  to  scale-up  carbon  neutral 

methods of glass production. 

Two papers highlighted the need to increase the bioeconomy. One from the Union for the Promotion of Oil and 

Protein Plants said there is need for open dialogue about using agricultural biomass instead of importing fuels. 

The other paper from The Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment focused more on cutting emissions 

associated with materials, including their production and disposal. They believe the Climate Pact  must invite 

associated bodies to collaborate. 

23 Buildings Performance Institute Europe 
24 EuroACE: The EU Green Deal: A Man on the Moon or Cosy at Home? Page.1 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A paper from the Confederation of European Forest Owners (CEPF), focused on updating the EU Forest Strategy 

and integrating it into the European Green Deal. This would involve creating a transparent and inclusive multi-

stakeholder platform to find solutions to the challenges related to forests.  

Two further papers focused more closely on the role of stakeholder engagement. Orgalim, a European engineering 

and electronics representative, cited that citizens and business should be at the core of the energy transition. 

They  proposed  an  inclusive,  transparent,  and  continuous  dialogue  for  stakeholders  as  well  as  consultation 

mechanisms  that  include  all  stakeholders.  In  the  other  paper,  the  European  Association  of  the  Electricity 

Transmission  &  Distribution  Equipment  and  Services  Industry  (T&D)  emphasised  the  importance  of  mass 

dissemination of climate change information, especially aimed at young people. They suggested including local 

and regional authorities and other key actors in climate plans. 

The European Association for Coal and Lignite (Euracoal) also submitted a paper which talked about the need to 

create new economic development for coal regions as dependency on the coal industry is slowly reduced. Care 

needs to be taken to give these workers new opportunities. 

One paper from European Family Businesses thought that there should be a focus on family businesses across 

Europe, using their local expertise to manage a sustainable transition of energy. This could be done by expanding 

the  current  emission  trading  system  to  more  sectors  and  ensuring  national  emissions  instruments  are  still 

compatible. 

5.4.3 

Company/business organisation  

Seven  of  the  papers  analysed  were  submitted  by  an  individual  company  or  business  organisation.  Very  few 

opinions were offered directly on the Pact or the need for collaboration and most focused on key sectors and 

policies to drive decarbonisation, similar to EU citizens. For example, Velux, the Danish window manufacturer, 

welcomed  building  renovations  as  75%  of  the  current  stock  is  energy  inefficient.  Another  paper  came  from 

Dnevnik who warned that if fiscal rules remain unchanged there would be an uneven distribution of available 

funds for development, to the detriment of less developed countries and regions.  

5.4.4 

EU citizen  

Four of the papers analysed came from EU citizens.  

One  EU  citizen,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Europeans  for  Climate  Association,  believes  the  Climate  Pact  can 

promote  networking  and  face-to-face  opportunities  through  workshops.  Similar  to  one  environmental 

organisation25,  this  citizen  suggested  the  Pact  could  also  encourage  dissemination  of  information  regarding 

environmental policies, available funds, individual and business initiatives and how to identify false information.  

Other papers focused less directly on the Pact, and more so on ideas to drive decarbonisation, different ideas 

than the three academic/research institute papers26. For example, one focused on improving life for citizens and 

recommended: to only build off-shore (as opposed to onshore) wind farms to avoid damaging living space; only 

building  solar  panels  on  houses  rather  than  take  up  green  space;  and  stimulating  public  transport.  They  also 

recommended  against  stimulating  electric  vehicles  as  this  will  increase  energy  costs  for  citizens.  Another 

suggested annual competitions for corporations who have succeeded in reducing their harmful gas emissions. It 

25 European Environmental Bureau (EEB) 
26 Buildings Performance Institute Europe, EIT climate-KIC and Wyns, T. and G. Khandekar 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
suggested these could be funded by the Just Transition Fund, European Commission or crowdfunded. This could 

incentivise  corporations  to  reduce  emissions  and  provide  a  platform  to  disseminate  the  activities  taken  to 

reduce emissions. 

5.4.5 

Environmental organisation  

Five of the papers analysed came from environmental organisations. 

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) suggested that the Pact could address all EU-climate related policies 

as a whole, rather than focusing on individual areas and risk losing efficiency from a lack of shared knowledge.  

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) stated that the European Union has faced criticism for its failure to 

comply with the Aarhus Convention, which guarantees access to information, public participation and access to 

justice in environmental matters.  

The Wildlife Conservation Society EU suggested that forest partnership agreements can be developed to support 

partner countries in strengthening their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).  

5.4.6 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) 

17 of the papers analysed were submitted by NGOs.  

Two papers discussed decarbonising heat but in slightly different ways. One submitted by DecarbHeat Initiative 

focused more broadly on the whole heating sector, highlighting the need to tap into existing local resources and 

technology, such as thermal storage. It also stated that with a robust strategy for decarbonisation on a national 

and local level more ambitious climate goals could be achieved. They asked for help identifying the investment 

needs in infrastructures and research and development, such as the industrial process heat, building sector and 

innovative renewable technologies.  

Four papers discussed wider decarbonisation in industry. The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and focused 

on replacing use of natural gas with hydrogen as an alternative. They believe it is essential to remain technology 

neutral  and  legislation  should  reflect  this.  They  suggested  creating  a  Distribution  System  of  Operators  (DSO) 

organisation similar to the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSOG) to give DSOs a 

platform. 

Two of these papers came from the Climate Action Network (CAN), one looked at decarbonisation from a post 

COVID-19 perspective and the  other warned of the dangers of unemployment in the solid fuel extraction and 

combustion sector. They  suggested the Just Transition  Fund  could  be used to  support  economic recovery and 

there should be clear incentives to invest in renewable energy. In parallel with ERRIN business association, CAN 

believe  the  Climate  Pact  can  create  forums  to  enable  collaboration,  as  well  as  help  scale  up  successful 

initiatives identified at these forums.  

Similarly, the Climate Alliance stated that collaboration between municipalities and indigenous communities is 

vital.  They  believe  that  all  national  and  local  government  initiatives  with  practical  measures  should  be 

implemented in a way to mobilise others throughout the EU, in particular citizens as well as other governments. 

They suggested the Climate Pact develops forums and platforms to allow sector-specific innovators at all levels 

to share information. 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ecolise (the European network for community-led initiatives) focused on community-scale carbon reduction as 

an enabler of action and a way to raise public awareness. They suggested putting in place appropriate legislation 

and enabling frameworks for community-led initiatives. 

Two papers highlighted the necessity for sustainable development. Scientists for Future believe that the Climate 

Pact could ensure socially equitable burden sharing to enable social stability and cohesion. 

The European Climate Foundation published a paper that suggested the Climate Pact offers an umbrella to test 

and support innovative approaches for public involvement. Relevant initiatives from Member States could be 

used as a model, such as the Citizen Assemblies. 

A  paper  from  the  Spanish  Institute  of  Women  and  for  Equal  Opportunities  urged  the  importance  of  including 

gender  inclusive  perspective  in  the Pact’s  structure,  development,  and  its  actions.  They  suggested  an  open 

space for queries and joint debate, with indicators to monitor inclusivity and offer visibility of good practices on 

the role of women tackling climate change. 

A paper from the European Federation of Geologists focused on geothermal energy utilising carbon capture and 

storage solutions. Standardising legislation for land use, permitting, mining, and quarrying, and restoration and 

nature conservations will be necessary along with public participation on governance procedures.  

A paper from the International Olympic Committee highlighted the benefits of using sport as a promotion tool. 

They believe that sport teams and EU member states could align their messages and the global audience of sport 

would be encouraged to participate in climate change actions. 

5.4.7 

Public authority 

13 of the papers analysed came from a public authority.  

Six  of  these  highlighted  collaboration  as  key  to  achieving  climate  change,  including  one  from  the  Dutch 

government27. They support the proposal of the Climate Pact to change behaviour towards climate action. They 

believe that pledges can help bring citizens climate change behaviour in line with national strategies. They also 

stated  that  interactive  approaches  and  collaboration  amongst  various  stakeholders  is  needed  to  achieve 

sustainability in different sectors, including the cooperation between private and public sectors.  Goals agreed 

during collaboration can be achieved with adequate financing.  

Another came from the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) and thought information on best 

practices at a local level would be key in achieving climate goals. To encourage collaboration they suggested 

competitions,  websites,  events,  and  consultations.  This  view  is  continued  by  the  Department  of 

Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Ireland who believe that citizen assemblies will be the most 

effective at promoting dialogues from a representative portion of the population. 

Another paper that mentioned collaboration was presented by the Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), 

who suggested leveraging and seeking synergies with existing initiatives to scale-up their results, such as:  the 

Covenant of Mayors, the Coal Regions in Transition Platform, and the Marketplace of the European Innovation 

Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities. Providing a space for sectoral engagement and innovation as well 

27 Government of the Netherlands: Dutch reflection on the European Green Deal 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
as  developing  the  Climate  Pact  as  a  platform  to  promote  action,  rather  than  commitment,  would  promote 

collaboration.  

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) highlighted collaboration across three papers. Similar to 

business  associations28,  NGOs29  and  the  Europeum  Institute  for  European  Policy,  EESC  believe  in  a  forum  for 

structured  dialogue  between  civil  society  and  decision-makers  at  EU  and  national  level.  This  will  allow  civil 

society actors to put forward their ideas and the problems they encounter when trying to implement them, make 

recommendations to politicians as to how to proceed, and receive qualified answers to the issues and problems 

they have raised. They recommend starting a debate on EU Bill of Climate Rights that encapsulates the rights of 

citizens  and  to  use  the  Semester  Process  to  deliver  this  ambition.  One  key  message  was  to  understand  the 

disproportionate effects of climate change and to combat this by helping the most vulnerable first. 

The City of Ghent published a paper suggesting an artistic light festival as a way to reach out to a large number 

of European citizens about climate change.  

One  from  the  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  focused  on  raising  awareness  of  environmental  impacts  of 

diets and best practices in food production and consumption as key mechanisms to achieve reduction in food 

waste while simultaneously promoting healthier and more sustainable diets. They also welcome the priority to 

urge third-world countries to intensify their adaptation and mitigation efforts alongside the EU. 

Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  Europe  (INSPIRE)  believes  that  data  can  support  administrative 

decisions  such  as  urban  planning  and  land  use.  Citizen  participation  can  help  create  an  urban  digital 

ecosystem, discovering the best use of urban spaces. The same ecosystem can be used to create energy efficient 

buildings and increase road safety using maps. 

The European Federation of Agencies and Regions for Energy and the Environment (FEDARENE) believes that the 

Climate Pact should act as an umbrella initiative and inspire local actions from experience, replicate its best 

innovations and scale-up those with the best impacts on citizens. 

The Conférence des Présidents des régions ultrapériphériques (CPRUP) believe that local stakeholders should be 

regularly involved in the implementation of climate adaption and resilience  activities, in particular  to tackle 

significant  environmental  shocks  efficiently.  They  also  believe  that  monitoring  is  crucial  to  gain  an  accurate 

understanding of the effectiveness of climate action. 

5.4.8 

Trade union  

One of the papers analysed came from a trade union. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) asks that 

the Climate Law and the Climate Pact promote and strengthen an inclusive governance process where social 

dialogue and trade unions have a key role. Trade unions are structured, have on-the-ground perspective, and 

democratically  represent  the  people  most  affected.  For  social  dialogue  to  work  effectively,  strengthening 

workers' participation and empowering trade unions to ensure their effective involvement is essential.  

5.4.9 

Other  

28 European Regions Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN) 
29 Climate Action Network (CAN) and Climate Alliance 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 of the papers analysed came from other sources.  

Five of these believe that a focus on creating a circular economy is essential. One from the European Economic 

and Social Committee (EESC) expressed their opinion that visualisations of various financing sources available 

to sustainable projects will help achieve the goals of the Climate Pact. They believe that supporting a circular 

economy and new sources of accessible funding (mainly from the private sector) would help citizens to achieve 

climate  goals.  Another  paper,  from  the  European  Finance  Climate  Pact,  suggested  improvements  to  the 

framework for a circular economy. A visualisation tool of all the various forms of financing would greatly help 

stakeholders find the funding they need for sustainable projects. The Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived 

(FEAD) believe that moving away from waste management and into a circular economy will help achieve climate 

goals. The expertise of waste management companies will be crucial in moving to a circular economy. They also 

believe that clear rules are needed to allow an appropriate balance between high recycling rates and  quality 

recycling. A paper from a blog on the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform highlighted their opinion of the 

importance  of  a  circular  economy  within  agriculture.  They  discuss  the  Farm  and  Food  Strategy,  how  it  is 

intended to strengthen the efforts of EU farmers to tackle climate change, but that it is not very forthcoming on 

how this might be done. A part of the Strategy should be to clarify what contribution is expected from the farming 

and food sector and to make a more concrete roadmap to deliver this contribution. 

Eurocities, a network of cities across Europe, is one of two papers to highlight citizen engagement as crucial. 

They think the Pact should boost the commitments already signed at a local level as well as generate new ones. 

As many cities have set up local climate pacts, they believe the European Climate Pact can act as an umbrella 

initiative, offering opportunities for learning, exchanging, co-creation, engagement, and collaboration. Working 

with city authorities would help engage citizens and give them a voice. This is in line with public authority30 and 

NGO’s31 suggestions of the Pact acting as an umbrella initiative to inspire local actions and support innovation.  

Another  paper  came  from  La  Région  Centre-Val  de  Loire  in  France  and  cited  that  mass  dissemination  of 

information regarding climate change is needed to inform citizens, especially young citizens. They suggest local 

and regional authorities be involved in plans. 

Similar to business association32 and NGO33 , the Europeum Institute for European Policy, an independent, non-

profit cohesion, suggested the Climate Pact engages with central and local governments, carrying out extensive 

information roll-out via multiple sector-specific forums and collaborations. They also believe that to achieve 

operational success and implementation of actions through the Climate Pact, local and regional authorities and 

other key stakeholders must be associated in plans. 

5.5 

Summary of analysis 

101 papers were analysed, with 23 submitted formally though the open public consultation and the remainder 

were  sourced  online  outside  the  open  public  consultation.  The  papers  provided  valuable  insights  from  key 

stakeholders  on  the  relevance  of  the  Pact,  collaboration  and  stakeholder  participation  to  achieve  climate 

neutrality, climate adaptation and environmental protection at large. Alongside offering broad support for the 

objectives of the Pact (i.e. greater collaboration and engagement across society), the papers contained a range 

of ideas and suggestions around who should collaborate and how, what key actions would be and the content 

30 European Federation of Agencies and Regions for Energy and the Environment (FEDARENE) 
31 European Climate Foundation 
32 European Regions Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN) 
33 Climate Action Network (CAN) 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of  pledges,  and  also  what  information  would  be  an  important  input  to  galvanising  activity.  Additionally,  a 

number of papers suggested a large selection of existing initiatives/policies as key foundation to developing 

the Pact. 

The  most  represented  stakeholder  groups  in  the  analysed  papers  were  business  associations  (32%)  and  non-

governmental  organisations  (17%).  A  few  papers  also  represented  a  combination  of  non-governmental 

organisations,  public  authorities,  EU  citizens,  environmental  organisations,  company/business  organisations, 

trade unions and other stakeholder groups. Most papers represented a pan-EU viewpoint (66%), with other papers 

authored by specific countries throughout Europe and six presenting an international perspective. 

Many papers highlighted the importance of information dissemination to help achieve climate neutrality and 

facilitate  collaboration.  Over  a  third  of  papers  highlighted  the  relevance  of  information  on  funds  and 

investment needs. Papers also suggested a need for better information on regulatory and policy frameworks 

to support research and innovation as a means of promoting public collaboration. A number of papers highlighted 

investment in education, such as upskilling, as important, enabling more citizens to actively engage in existing 

initiatives.  To a lesser extent, papers also identified the importance of information on sustainable industrial 

strategies.  

Those papers which directly considered the Pact and pledges were supportive of their potential role in promoting 

climate  action.  They  suggested  that  pledges  could  have  several  positive  effects,  including:  enabling  more 

ambitious  climate  goals,  recognizing  climate  action  beyond  the  state  and  bringing  about  a  change  in 

behaviour. There was a strong suggestion for the Climate Pact to act as an umbrella initiative to inspire local 

action and ensure inclusive policy making. Even where the Pact was not being considered directly, many more 

papers underlined the importance of collaboration in achieving climate goals. 

The  papers  highlighted  a  broad  range  of  different  stakeholders  who  would  play  a  positive  or  critical  role  in 

collaboration and provided a number of suggestions for ways in which stakeholders could collaborate, such as 

forums and tools to facilitate sharing (which would also be useful for policy makers and project financers). On 

the latter, papers highlighted the design of an  open multi-stakeholder platform, providing clear regulatory 

frameworks, enhancing cooperation between private and public sector and using the expertise of different 

key stakeholders and industries’ experience as important components. That said, who is involved, and the 

most effective means of collaboration will depend somewhat on the specific objective that collaboration is 

seeking to achieve – e.g. dissemination of best practice within an industry would be structured differently to the 

development  of  climate  plans.  Several  stakeholders  highlighted  the  critical  importance  that  such  forums  are 

inclusive, participative and monitored to ensure this is the case.  

The papers identified several ways in which the goals of the Pact can support and connect existing initiatives 

to  help  reinforce  them  and  ensure  joint  work  towards  a  common  goal.  These  included  promoting  the  active 

collaboration of different stakeholders throughout the value chains, whilst emphasising the importance of the 

business community. The papers also suggested the Pact could support existing initiatives by facilitating carbon 

neutral strategies in different sectors, redesigning markets, institutions, policies and financial mechanisms 

to  promote  citizens  participation  in  a  low  carbon  transition  and  enable  more  research  and  innovation. 

However, the Pact was not considered enough to tackle climate change alone. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
131 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex A: Open Public Consultation 
questionnaire transcript 

Open Public Consultation on the European Climate Pact, within the European Green Deal 

Introduction 

The European Green Deal sets out how to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, boosting the 
economy, improving people's health and quality of life, caring for nature, and leaving no one behind. 

The transition to a society which is climate-neutral (i.e. does not produce more greenhouse gases than it absorbs) 
and protects the environment is both an urgent challenge and an opportunity to build a better future for all. It is 
about people and their daily lives: how we produce and consume, use transport, work and live together. Alongside 
government policies and regulation, there is a role to play for citizens, communities and organisations in all sectors 
of our society and economy. 

To this end, as part of the Green Deal, the Commission will launch a European Climate Pact to give citizens and 
stakeholders from all parts of society a voice and role in designing new climate actions, sharing information, 
launching grassroots activities and showcasing solutions that others can follow. Please note that ‘climate action’ 
refers to all actions to address climate change, environmental degradation and sustainability at large. 

The European Climate Pact aims to inform, inspire and foster cooperation between people and organisations 
ranging from national, regional and local authorities to businesses, unions, civil society organisations, education 
organisations, consumer groups, research and innovation organisations, as well as individual citizens, including 
youth. 

We are not starting from scratch. The European Climate Pact will build on and facilitate existing activities as well 
as trigger and embrace new ones, acting as an ‘umbrella’ initiative offering opportunities for learning, exchange, 
co-creation and collaboration. 

The European Climate Pact will encourage broad societal engagement on the road to climate-neutrality by: 

1.  Talking about climate change. Through communication activities and events, and by using multiple channels 
and tools, the Pact will raise awareness and build understanding of climate change based on reliable 
scientific evidence, inspire people and organisations to become involved and encourage sustainable 
behaviours. 

2.  Triggering action. The Pact will encourage people and organisations to commit to concrete climate- friendly 

actions, designed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and/or adapt to the inevitable climate 
change impacts. The Commission will promote pledges (public commitments around climate change-
related actions) and support relevant initiatives with knowledge/capacity-building, to boost their 
impact, and inspire further action across Europe and globally. 

In selected areas, the Commission could provide targeted support. In the first instance, this could focus 
on three areas, namely: 1) energy efficiency of buildings, e.g. stimulating advisory services, facilitating 
smart financing and assisting local authorities; 2) low-carbon mobility, e.g. supporting cities and towns 
with knowledge, raising awareness, and possibly targeted financial support for sustainable urban 
mobility plans; and 3) initiatives for tree-planting, nature regeneration and urban green areas. 

3.  Working together. The Pact will provide opportunities for communication, learning and networking, online and 
offline. It will help to bring together people and organisations to share ideas and experience, and work 
together on climate. Direct citizen consultations could be organised on climate issues, using formats 
such as citizen dialogues, citizen assemblies, and more. As appropriate, these platforms will link to 
existing initiatives, such as the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy or “CITIZENV” dialogues with 
young people across Europe. 

Guidance on the questionnaire 

Thank you for taking part in this consultation. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
We want to hear your views on how to make the European Climate Pact as effective, inclusive and ambitious as 
possible. Share with us your ideas, advice or practical examples related to the activities proposed by us, existing 
activities you know of or are already involved in, and possible new activities. 

All replies to the questionnaire as well as uploaded position papers and policy briefs will be published online. Please 
read the privacy statement on how personal data and contributions will be processed. 

Following some introductory questions about yourself, the questionnaire continues with questions about the 
European Climate Pact. The estimated time for completion is 25 minutes. The questions cover the following topics: 

1.  Talking about climate change and environmental crisis: Awareness and information 
2.  Triggering action: pledges and initiatives 
3.  Working together: platforms 
4. 
5.  Your climate actions and interest in the Pact 

Ideas and suggestions for further development 

About you 

[Q1] Language of my contribution 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Bulgarian 
Croatian 
Czech 
Danish 
Dutch 
English 
Estonian 
Finnish 
French 
Gaelic 
German 
Greek 
Hungarian 
Italian 
Latvian 
Lithuanian 
Maltese 
Polish 
Portuguese 
Romanian 
Slovak 
Slovenian 
Spanish 
Swedish 

[Q2] I am giving my contribution as 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Academic/research institution 
Business association 
Company/business organisation 
Consumer organisation 
EU citizen 
Environmental organisation 
Non-EU citizen 
Non-governmental organisation (NGO) 
Public authority 
Trade union 
Other 

[Q3] Scope 
• 
• 
• 
• 

International 
Local 
National 
Regional 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Q4] First name 

[Q5] Surname 

[Q6] Email (this won’t be published) 

[Q7] Organisation name 
255 character(s) maximum 

[Q8] Organisation size 

• 
• 
• 
• 

Micro (1 to 9 employees) 
Small (10 to 49 employees) 
Medium (50 to 249 employees) 
Large (250 or more) 

[Q9] Transparency register number 
255 character(s) maximum 
Check if your organisation is on the transparency register. It's a voluntary database for organisations seeking to 
influence EU decision-making. 

[Q10] Country of origin 
Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation. 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 

• 
• 
• 

Afghanistan 
Åland Islands 
Albania 
Algeria 
American Samoa 
Andorra 
Angola 
Anguilla 
Antarctica 
Antigua and Barbuda 
Argentina 
Armenia 
Aruba 
Australia 
Austria 
Azerbaijan 
Bahamas 
Bahrain 
Bangladesh 
Barbados 
Belarus 
Belgium 
Belize 
Benin 
Bermuda 
Bhutan 
Bolivia 
Bonaire Saint 
Eustatius and Saba 
Bosnia and 
Herzegovina 
Botswana 
Bouvet Island 
Brazil 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

France 
French Guiana 
French Polynesia 
French Southern and 
Antarctic Lands 
Gabon 
Georgia 
Germany 
Ghana 
Gibraltar 
Greece 
Greenland 
Grenada 
Guadeloupe 
Guam 
Guatemala 
Guernsey 
Guinea 
Guinea-Bissau 
Guyana 
Haiti 
Heard Island and 
McDonald Islands 
Honduras 
Hong Kong 
Hungary 
Iceland 
India 
Indonesia 
Iran 
Iraq 
Ireland 
Isle of Man 
Israel 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Palestine 
Panama 
Papua New Guinea 
Paraguay 
Peru 
Philippines 
Pitcairn Islands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Puerto Rico 
Qatar 
Réunion 
Romania 
Russia 
Rwanda 
Saint Barthélemy 
Saint Helena 
Ascension and Tristan 
da Cunha 
Saint Kitts and Nevis 
Saint Lucia 
Saint Martin 
Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines 
Samoa 
San Marino 
São Tomé and 
Príncipe 
Saudi Arabia 
Senegal 
Serbia 
Seychelles 
Sierra Leone 
Singapore 
Sint Maarten 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Solomon Islands 
Somalia 
South Africa 
South Georgia and the 
South Sandwich 
Islands 
South Korea 
South Sudan 
Spain 
Sri Lanka 
Sudan 
Suriname 
Svalbard and Jan 
Mayen 
Swaziland 
Sweden 
Switzerland 
Syria 
Taiwan 
Tajikistan 
Tanzania 
Thailand 
The Gambia 
Timor-Leste 
Togo 
Tokelau 
Tonga 
Trinidad and Tobago 
Tunisia 
Turkey 
Turkmenistan 
Turks and Caicos 
Islands 
Tuvalu 
Uganda 
Ukraine 
United Arab Emirates 
United Kingdom 
United States 
United States Minor 
Outlying Islands 
Uruguay 
US Virgin Islands 
Uzbekistan 
Vanuatu 
Vatican City 
Venezuela 
Vietnam 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•  Wallis and Futuna 
•  Western Sahara 
• 
• 
• 

Yemen 
Zambia 
Zimbabwe 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 

British Indian Ocean 
Territory 
British Virgin Islands 
Brunei 
Bulgaria 
Burkina Faso 
Burundi 
Cambodia 
Cameroon 
Canada 
Cape Verde 
Cayman Islands 
Central African 
Republic 
Chad 
Chile 
China 
Christmas Island 
Clipperton 
Cocos (Keeling) 
Islands 
Colombia 
Comoros 
Congo 
Cook Islands 
Costa Rica 
Côte d’Ivoire 
Croatia 
Cuba 
Curaçao 
Cyprus 
Czechia 
Democratic Republic 
of the Congo 
Denmark 
Djibouti 
Dominica 
Dominican Republic 
Ecuador 
Egypt 
El Salvador 
Equatorial Guinea 
Eritrea 
Estonia 
Ethiopia 
Falkland Islands 
Faroe Islands 
Fiji 
Finland 
Former Yugoslav 
Republic of 
Macedonia 
France 
French Guiana 
French Polynesia 
French Southern and 
Antarctic Lands 
Finland 
Former Yugoslav 
Republic of 
Macedonia 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 

Italy 
Jamaica 
Japan 
Jersey 
Jordan 
Kazakhstan 
Kenya 
Kiribati 
Kosovo 
Kuwait 
Kyrgyzstan 
Laos 
Latvia 
Lebanon 
Lesotho 
Liberia 
Libya Saint Pierre and 
Miquelon 
Liechtenstein 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Macau 
Madagascar 
Malawi 
Malaysia 
Maldives 
Mali 
Malta 
Marshall Islands 
Martinique 
Mauritania 
Mauritius 
Mayotte 
Mexico 
Micronesia 
Moldova 
Monaco 
Mongolia 
Montenegro 
Montserrat 
Morocco 
Mozambique 
Myanmar/Burma 
Namibia 
Nauru 
Nepal 
Netherlands 
New Caledonia 
New Zealand 
Nicaragua 
Niger 
Nigeria 
Niue 
Norfolk Island 
North Korea 
Northern Mariana 
Islands 
Norway 
Oman 
Pakistan 
Palau 

135 

 
 
 
 
[Q11] Please indicate the sector you are active in 
As an individual or as an organisation. 

Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry 
Financial Intermediation 
Fishing 
Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities 
Mining and Quarrying 
Public Administration and Defence 
Manufacturing 
Education/training 
Research and innovation 
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 
Health and Social Work 
Construction 
Other Community, Social and Personal Services 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•  Wholesale and Retail Trade 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Activities of Private Households as Employers 
Hotels and Restaurants 
Extraterritorial Organisations and Bodies 
Transport, Storage and Communications 
Consumers association 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

We would like to ask you a couple of more questions about you, to have more information for the analysis of the 
survey. 

[Q12] Age group 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

<18 
18-30 
31-40 
41-50 
51-60 
61-70 
71-80 
81> 

[Q13] Gender 

• 
• 
• 
• 

Female 
Male 
Other 
Rather not say 

[Q14] Education 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Primary school 
High school 
Vocational education/trade school 
Applied university 
University level (Bachelor, Master) 
PhD/Doctorate 

[Q15] Publication privacy settings 
The Commission will publish the responses to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would like your 
details to be made public or to remain anonymous. 

• 

• 

Anonymous 
Only your type of respondent, country of origin and contribution will be published. All other personal 
details (name, organisation name and size, transparency register number) will not be published. 
Public 
Your personal details (name, organisation name and size, transparency register number, country of origin) 
will be published with your contribution. 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I agree with the personal data protection provisions 

Questions 

1 – Talking about climate change and environmental crisis: awareness and information 

The European Climate Pact aims to increase awareness and understanding of climate change, and explore ways in 
which European citizens and all types of organisations can take climate action. 

[Q16] What information would be useful for you or your organisation under the European Climate Pact? 
at most 4 choice(s) 
Please choose the four types that are the most relevant for you. 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

Climate change and environmental crises and their impacts 
Climate change and environmental policies and action 
Concrete actions that I or my organisation can take to become more climate- 
friendly 
Advice and support that are available to help me or my organisation to take action 
Support available to cope with the effects of mitigation measures (e.g. closures of coal mines, increases 
in fuel/energy prices) 
The costs of (in-)action and its social impacts 
Information on climate risks (e.g. consequences on the food chain, water availability, health...) and ways 
and means to prepare for those  
Support available to cope with the effects of climate change What others are doing (e.g. individual 
actions, collective initiatives) 
How to identify false or misleading information and how to best engage with sources that spread reliable 
information, e.g. via online social media or in my social network. 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q17] What would be your preferred sources for information about climate change and how you can take action? 
at most 4 choice(s) 
Please choose the four most relevant sources for you. 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Scientists/experts/think tanks 
National authorities 
Regional and/or Local authorities 
EU institutions/international organisations 
Businesses 
Universities/Schools 
Civil society organisations/climate activists 
Youth organisations 
Celebrities/Influencers/Family and friends, people I know 
“Climate Pact” ambassadors in various sections of the society 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q18] What channels and tools would you find useful for awareness raising under the European Climate Pact? 
at most 4 choice(s) 
Please choose the four most relevant for you. 

•  Websites 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Youtube) 
Traditional media (e.g. newspapers, television, radio) 
Advertising 
Games/serious games/interactive platforms/apps 
EU-level events 
National, regional events 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Local events 
Conversations with citizens on specific policy topics (citizens’ dialogues/assemblies) 
Grassroots initiatives 
Educational programmes at schools 
Creative events/films 
Local helpdesks for consultancy and practical advice 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q19] What types of face-to-face events would you find interesting to attend? 
at most 4 choice(s) 
Please choose the four most relevant for you. 

Large events 

• 
•  Workshops on specific topics or initiatives (Citizens’ dialogues, training sessions) 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Participatory sessions, think tank events 
Networking events, opportunities to meet like-minded people 
Theatre, libraries and museum events 
Local meetings in my neighbourhood with family, friends 
Other 
Not interested 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

2 – Triggering action: pledges and initiatives 

We can only halt climate change if we act together. Therefore, the European Climate Pact encourages individuals, 
organisations and institutions to commit to specific climate action goals by making pledges that go beyond 
legislation goals. 

For example, individuals could pledge to start or increase a climate-friendly behaviour (such as using public 
transport more or cycling/walking, insulating their home and installing solar panels, consuming locally/more plant-
based food). Individuals could also pledge to call for governmental action (e.g. to increase public transport in 
cities, to maintain/create green areas). 

Organisations could pledge to implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or prepare for the impacts 
of climate change. For example, a Business could pledge to switch to 100% renewable energy or reduce the 
emissions from its operations by a specific amount and within a given timeframe. Financial institutions could pledge 
to transition their activities increasingly towards sustainable finance. 

[Q20] Would you or your organisation be prepared to pledge concrete climate action under the European Climate 
Pact?  
(Multiple entries possible) 

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Yes, I have already made a climate action commitment and would be interested in building on it 
Yes, I am already considering making a climate action commitment and would be interested in engaging 
in this aspect 
Yes, but I would need information or non-financial support to take action (e.g. guidance, good 
practices). 
Yes, but I would need help to gather wider support and acceptance. 
Yes, but I would need financial support. 
Yes, but I would need … 
No, I am not interested in contributing to the Pact. 
No, I am not interested in engaging in climate action. 
Do not know. 
Other 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Please specify 
500 character(s) maximum 

[Q21] What would you see as the main advantages of making a pledge? 
(Multiple entries possible) 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Motivation to take action by having a goal 
Accountability for my actions by making my pledge public 
Recognition for my actions by being part of the Pact 
More business opportunities as a result of commitments to sustainability 
Being part of a community of pledgers, connecting with others, sharing experience 
Lead by example, motivate others around me to do the same 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

Please outline the reasons why you selected ‘No’. What would make you or your organisation more likely to make a 
pledge? 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q22] What themes could you see your pledge addressing?  
(Multiple entries possible) 

• 

• 
• 
• 

Business/organisational transformation (for organisation)/Wide-ranging change in personal behaviour (for 
individual: –e.g. daily consumption- changing food or household habits-) 
Transport, mobility 
Energy efficiency (e.g. buying products with the most efficient energy label, insulating buildings) 
Renewable energy usage/generation (e.g. installing solar panels, heat pumps, procuring renewable 
energy) 

•  Water management 
• 

Circular economy: less waste (e.g. through less packaging or eco-design), re-use, recycling, waste 
management 
Local/sustainably produced/plant-based food 
Increasing green and biodiverse areas, afforestation 
Developing knowledge and skills for the transition to a climate-neutral society 
Other 

• 
• 
• 
• 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q23] As explained in the introductory section, initially, the European Climate Pact could offer targeted support 
(e.g. awareness-raising, advice, possibly funding) in three areas: energy efficiency in buildings, low-carbon 
mobility in cities, as well as planting trees and creating urban green areas. Further areas could be added later. In 
which of these areas would you like to participate? 
(Multiple entries possible) 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Energy efficiency in buildings 
Low-carbon mobility in cities 
Planting trees/green urban areas 
Other 
None of the above 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

3 – Working together: platforms 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Climate Pact will facilitate collaboration and networking, providing a platform for citizens to 
express their ideas and work together on ambitious climate action. The Pact’s website will be its central 
online hub. 

[Q24] What would you find useful under this platform? 
(Multiple entries possible) 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Listing of relevant events (in my country/field of work) 
Online events (e.g. webstreamed events, webinars, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), trainings) 
Links to connect with like-minded people and organisations 
Links to other relevant platforms and initiatives 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q25] What do you consider as useful for more collaboration between individuals or organisations? 
at most 4 choice(s) 
Please choose the four options that are the most relevant for you. 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Opportunities for online/face-to-face contacts and exchange (networking) 
‘Matchmaking’ between organisations or initiatives 
Support for grassroots and other relevant initiatives/activists in local communities 
Support for collaboration initiatives and projects (e.g. access to funding, capacity building, etc.) 
Trainings on climate change problems and collaborative solutions 
Harmonised reporting and monitoring for climate action initiatives 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q26] As much as possible, the European Climate Pact will build on initiatives that already exist and that are run 
by citizens, businesses, public institutions, schools, and others. In your view, what is the best way to 
promote and support these kinds of initiatives and to link them more closely with climate action under the 
European Green Deal? 
at most 4 choice(s) 

• 
• 
• 
• 

• 

• 

Provide material support (e.g. financing, capacity building, etc.) 
Provide non-material support (e.g. recognition, praise, greater visibility, etc.) 
Facilitate bottom-up networking among institutions, organisations or individual citizens themselves 
Establish connections with specific policy areas and processes, providing spaces for consultation and co-
deliberation (for example, in the context of the research missions or the public-private partnerships 
under the Horizon Europe research and innovation framework programme) 
Create a more favourable environment for the activities of these initiatives, including by removing 
cultural, political, governance or other obstacles 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

4 – Ideas and suggestions for further development 

The European Climate Pact will build as much as possible on existing initiatives to engage the public and all 
stakeholders in climate action. 

[Q27] How do you believe the Pact can best complement or scale-up existing initiatives and add value? Please 
refer to the specific initiatives you have in mind (maximum two initiatives) 
400 character(s) maximum 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Q28] What would be the most important characteristics of the Climate Pact for you? 
(Multiple entries possible) 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Ambition 
Transparency 
Inclusiveness 
Participation 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q29] If you are aware of or involved in any initiatives that could be potentially interested in joining the Pact, 
please provide their name and a brief description below, including web links and contact information where 
applicable (maximum two initiatives) 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q30] The involvement of ‘ambassadors’ at various levels and from different backgrounds could help increase 
the effectiveness and success of the European Climate Pact. In your opinion, what type of ‘ambassadors’ 
could contribute to the Pact (e.g. profile, field of expertise)? 
at most 4 choice(s) 
Please choose the four most relevant types for you. 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Scientists, experts 
Business people, entrepreneurs 
Politicians 
Celebrities 
Artists 
Sportsmen/sportswomen 
Media, journalists 
Social media influencers 
Climate or environmental activists 
Youth 
Students 
Climate Pact ambassadors/focal points in all sectors of the economy 
Teachers 
People active in the local community 
Education and training professionals 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q31] Would you be interested in becoming an ‘ambassador’ for the European Climate Pact in your community or 
sphere of influence? 

• 
• 
• 

Yes 
No 
Don’t know 

Please give a short description about yourself and your ideas for exploring this possibility, as well as what kind of 
action and awareness raising initiatives you would have in mind (if you have selected yes, we may contact you via 
e-mail). 
600 character(s) maximum 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Joint green procurement is a concept where organisations collectively invest in climate-friendly options to obtain 
better offers from goods or service providers (for example electric buses, solar panels, sustainably produced 
goods). 

[Q32] Would you like joint green procurement to be further encouraged and developed in the EU? If so, you can 
elaborate on possible ways forward 

• 
• 
• 

Yes 
No 
I don’t know/no opinion 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q33] Would you like your local authority to further participate in and facilitate joint green procurement for its 
citizens and stakeholders? 

• 
• 
• 

Yes 
No 
Do not know 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q34] The Climate Pact will include a monitoring, reporting and evaluation system on the implementation of the 
pledges collected, to encourage transparency, accountability, learning from experience and results. In your 
opinion, which approach will be the most suitable? 
Please select your preferred option(s). 

• 

• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Use existing monitoring and reporting systems from an independent body (e.g. for cities, towns and 
regions, the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy) 
Adapt reporting requirements and verification methods to participants’ emissions/pollution level, to be 
accomplished by an independent body (i.e. stricter reporting requirements for organisations with larger 
impact on climate) 
Light reporting and verification methods for all participants, to be accomplished by an independent body 
Deep reporting and verification methods for all participants, to be accomplished by an independent body 
Sample verification methods for all participants, to be accomplished by an independent body 
Self- or community-monitoring by participants 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q35] Could you share the name, link and brief description of such existing systems? 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q36] The European Climate Pact will develop and grow over time. Do you have suggestions for additional 
functions the Pact should provide or topics it should address (maximum two suggestions)? 
300 character(s) maximum 

5 – Your climate actions and interest in the Pact 

The Pact aims to bring about social and behavioural change of Europe's citizens, businesses and other organisations 
with regard to climate change. 

[Q37] In your view, how climate-friendly are you or your organisation now? 
Scale from 1 (not at all climate-friendly) to 4 (very climate-friendly) 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

1. Not at all climate-friendly 
2. Not so climate-friendly 
3. Quite climate-friendly 
4. Very climate-friendly 
Do not know 

[Q38] In your view, to what extent could you or your organisation become more climate-friendly? 
Scale from 1 (very little) to 4 (very much) 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

1. Very little opportunities to become more climate-friendly 
2. Little opportunities to become more climate-friendly 
3. Some opportunities to become more climate-friendly 
4. Many opportunities to become more climate-friendly 
Do not know 

[Q39] What would help you or your organisation to take more climate action/become more climate-friendly? 
at most 4 choice(s) 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 

More information of climate and environmental footprints 
Greater knowledge on what I or my organisation can do to take climate action 
Stricter laws, regulation and enforcement 
More appropriate infrastructures facilitating climate-friendly behaviours 
Connecting with others engaged or interested in climate action 
Seeing more people in my social network/similar organisations engage in climate action 
Concrete support (including financial) or incentives to adopt more climate-friendly behaviours or 
practices 
Moral (non-material) incentives, e.g. recognition, praise by others 
Nothing, I do not plan to change 
Do not know 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

[Q40] Would you be interested in taking part in the European Climate Pact? 

• 
• 
• 
• 

Yes, as an individual citizen 
Yes, as an organisation 
No 
Do not know 

[Q41] In your opinion, which types of activities under the European Climate Pact would have the biggest impact in 
society? 
at most 4 choice(s) 
Please choose the four types that are the most relevant for you. 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Awareness-raising on climate change and its impacts 
Educational, training and learning material 
Practical tips and consumer-friendly tools for assessing footprints and taking climate action 
Facilitating the exchange of experiences and best practice 
Facilitating bottom-up collaboration and action between people, organisations and initiatives 
Stimulating and recording voluntary commitments to climate action 
Practical (material) support to grassroots initiatives (e.g. capacity-building, access to funding) 
Non-material incentives, e.g. nudging, naming and shaming 
Other 

Please specify 
300 character(s) maximum 

Thank you for participating in this public consultation. Your views, ideas and suggestions are valuable to us. All 
replies will be analysed and receive due consideration. We will prepare a written summary of the results and 
explain how the consultation influenced the final design of the European Climate Pact. We will publish this 
summary online, together with any uploaded position papers and policy briefs as well as an explanation on how the 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission has followed up on your proposals. Please stay informed by consulting the website of the 
European Commission: https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en.    

Contact 
CLIMA-EUROPEAN-CLIMATE-PACT@ec.europa.eu  

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: List of Open Public Consultation 
attachments and position papers 

Annex B.1 Source of papers and prioritisation 

A table of all the papers that have been identified as relevant to the European Climate Pact and their 

priority rating. 

Source 
Open Public 
Consultation 
Submission 
Online Paper 

Total identified 

European Climate Pact Papers 

First Priority 

Priority I 

Priority II 

Priority III 

Dismissed 

Total 

23 

0 

0 

14 

0 

24 

0 

37 

0 

21 

23 

100 

123 

Annex B.2 Stakeholders representation 

A table of all the papers that have been identified as relevant to the European Climate Pact and selected 

for analysis, organised into their represented stakeholder group. 

Stakeholder group 

Academic/research institution 

Business association  

Company/business organisation  

Environmental organisation  

EU citizen 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)  

Other 

Public authority 

Trade union 

Grand Total 

Count 

12 

32 

7 

5 

4 

17 

10 

13 

1 

101 

Annex B.3 Regional representation 

A table of all the papers that have been identified as relevant to the European Climate Pact and selected 

for analysis, organised into their represented country. 

Country 

Belgium 

Denmark 

EU 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

International 

Ireland 

Count 

7 

1 

66 

2 

2 

5 

6 

2 

145 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Netherlands 

Spain 

UK 

Slovenia 

Belgium, Germany, UK 

Czechia 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Grand Total 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

101 

146 

 
 
Annex C: Online Papers search methodology  

Our primary tool for finding additional papers outside of the Open Public Consultation which presented 

opinions on the proposed Climate Pact was via use of an internet search engine.  

Google and BING have been used have  been used as the primary search engines of choice. Initially, a 

broad search for the following terms was undertaken: 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

EU climate pact 
EU green deal  
European climate pact 
EU climate pact position paper 
European climate pact position paper 
EU green deal position paper 
(Sector) response to EU Green Deal  
(Sector) response to EU Climate pact  

Note: Occasional variations of the above wording was also used, including translation into other widely 

European languages such as Spanish, French, and German. 

After review of the search results and abstraction of all available papers. The search was narrowed with 

the use of search tools such as “….”, (), +, Since:, filetype: (PDF)(DOC).  

The same techniques were later applied using social media websites Twitter and Linkedin.   

A  second  approach  was  also  tried  to  gather  more  data.  A  list  of  stakeholder  groups  and  global 

organisations was drawn up from search of “list of top (variable)” via internet search engine. Variables 

include, but limited to: 

• 
• 
• 

Third sector organisations (NGOs, charities, e.g WWF, Greenpeace)  
Industrial groups  
Business associations  

These  lists  were  then  systematically  worked  through  to  see  if  opinions/positions  were  published  on 

individual websites which may not appear on search engine websites (e.g. websites which block search 

engine bots).  

A  list  of  organisations  (multipliers)  was  also  provided  from  the  European  Commission.  This  list  was 

systematically  worked  through,  using  the  two  methodologies  described  above  to  identify  any  opinion 

statements published by relevant stakeholder groups.  

Once a potential paper to review was identified, we downloaded the document and began to catalogue 

our documents, assigning each paper a prioritisation, from top priority I down to bottom priority III. This 

was assigned based on the relevance of the paper to the European Climate Pact, with priority I papers 

focusing  on  the  Pact  and  discussing  the  collaboration  of  citizens  or  businesses.  Papers  were  assigned 

priority II if they did not explicitly mention the Pact but did discuss actions businesses or citizens could 

take to collaborate. Priority III papers may mention the importance of collaboration but did not suggest 

any actions to promote this. 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex D: Position paper summaries 

Annex D.1 Papers that have been analysed 

A table of all the papers that have been identified as relevant to the European Climate Pact, including a brief summary and some key information. 

ID 

Title 

Author 

Stakeholder 
group 

Language 

Type of 
document 

Source:  
OPC/ 
Paper 

Country   Priority 

Summary 

PP1 

THE EUROPEAN 
CLIMATE PACT: 
ENERGY CITIES’ 
EXPECTATIONS  

Energy 
Cities 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Policy Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

I 

PP18 

PP27 

BUILDINGS 
SHOULD BE AT 
THE HEART OF 
THE EUROPEAN 
GREEN DEAL.  
HERE’S WHY  

Buildings 
Performance 
Institute 
Europe 
(BPIE) 

Joint Statement: 
Multifunctional 
European forests 
are crucial to 
reach the 
objectives of a 
European Green 
Deal 

Confederation 
of European 
Forest Owners 
(CEPF) and 
other 
representative
s of European 
forests and the 
forest-based 
sector 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Discussion 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

Internatio
nal 

III 

148 

This paper provides comments on requests for the 
modifications to the regional environmental and energy plan 
(PAER) for Tuscany, Italy. It provides 5 points on the plan and 
how it should be changed. The majority of these points (2-5) 
all focus on geothermal power plants in the region. It states 
that such power plants are not appropriate for the region as 
they do not meet the objectives of the PAER. They are noted 
as the cause for a variety of air emissions (CO2, H2S, CH4, 
NH3 among others), sound pollution, as well effecting surface 
water and local agriculture and biodiversity. In same aspects 
the author notes that geothermal plants that have been built 
directly conflict with the PAER. They however do not provide 
evidence on how to support EU 2030 GHG emission reduction 
targets. 
The BPIE paper states that the EGD offers the opportunity to 
create a carbon-neutral Europe, a fairer society and a 
reinvigorated industrial powerhouse. Europe's citizens must 
be at its heart - and nowhere is this more apparent than in 
the buildings sector. Buildings are where we spend most of 
our time, and much of our money; for those who can afford 
it, buying a house is likely to be the biggest investment of a 
lifetime. Making our buildings climate-proof is not only about 
reducing the 36% of CO2 emissions they are responsible for, 
but about doing so while caring for the people that live in 
them. 

Forestry Sector should be central in the discussions on how to 
"defossilize" the EU and integrated in the European Green 
Deal. European forests have multiple functions, including the 
provision of ecosystem services like CO2 sequestration and 
social & economic functions. A robust and updated EU Forest 
Strategy post-2020 is needed. 

 
 
 
Confederation 
of European 
Paper 
Industries 
(CEPI) 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Focus on climate-neutral, circular economy products such as 
wood-based products, invest in major research and 
development programs. 

PP28 

PP36 

PP39 

PP43 

PRESS RELEASE: 
The European 
paper industry is 
ready to rise to 
the climate 
challenge 

The DecarbHeat 
Initiative is 
committed to 
supporting the 
European Green 
Deal  

A European Green 
Deal: The asphalt 
industry’s 
contributions to 
climate neutrality 
and preservation 
of Europe’s 
natural 
environment  

Reshaping the 
Future, The First 
Status Report on 
Community-led 
Action on 
Sustainability & 
Climate Change in 
Europe 2019 

Decarb Heat 
Initiative 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

European 
Asphalt 
Pavement 
Association 
(EAPA) 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Manifesto 

Online 
paper 

UK 

II 

Ecolise 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

I 

PP45 

‘Green Deal 
Commission’ 
overlooks 
environmental 
rights in 2020 
work programme 

European 
Environmental 
Bureau (EEB) 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

149 

Focus on decarbonising heating sector would allow even more 
ambitious CO2 emission reduction targets to be met. 
Investment in this industry can boost jobs and 
competitiveness whilst reducing emissions 

The European Asphalt Pavement Association (EAPA) is the 
trusted voice of the asphalt paving industry in Europe and 
works to ensure that the use of asphalt is fully appreciated, 
promoted and implemented. The EAPA paper states that the 
transport sector has been identified as one of the most CO2 
producing sectors. More than 90% of roads are surfaced with 
asphalt, the EAPA has the potential to become a key tool in 
such a process and is already active in various fields to target 
a climate-neutral future. Significant resources and 
economical support has been allocated from private and 
public sources to develop vehicles that progressively produce 
lower emissions. An additional route to produce significant 
reductions has been systematically ignored; the contribution 
of the roads. 

Research results show that community-led initiatives have 
great realised and potential contributions to decarbonisation. 
(p. 84) They can be supported by appropriate legislation and 
enabling frameworks as well as by enabling funding. (pp.113-
123) 
 The European Union has faced fierce criticism for its failure 
to comply with the Aarhus Convention, which guarantees 
access to information, public participation and access to 
justice in environmental matters. EEB, Client Earth and 
Justice & Environment wrote to Commission President Ursula 
von der Leyen to remind her of the importance of including a 
proposal for a revision of the Aarhus Regulation in her 2020 
Work Programme. The Commission Work Programme contains 
many positive elements that were already announced in the 
European Green Deal Communication in December. Among 
these is the commitment to reform the European Semester to 
integrate the Sustainable Development Goals and to ensure 
the UN’s 2030 Agenda and its global goals to be at the heart 
of policymaking. 

 
 
 
PP46 

European 
Finance-Climate 
Pact (own-
initiative opinion) 

European 
Economic 
and Social 
Committee 
(EESC) 

Other 

English 

Opinion 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

ESSC believes that the multiannual financial framework 
(2021-2017) must promote economic development while 
contributing to a low carbon transition by 2050. The finance-
climate pact aims to redirect money towards climate change 
mitigation and the real economy. It must receive new 
financing, mainly for SMEs, and provide a new roadmap for 
European leadership.  

PP49 

Position paper on 
energy transition 

European 
Federation 
Of 
Geologists 
(EFG) 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Energy transition should be lead using geothermal sources, 
including shallow geothermal and geothermal power 
production 

PP51 

EIT RawMaterials – 
Digitalisation in 
the Raw Materials 
Sector 

European 
Institute Of 
Innovation 
And 
Technology 
(EIT) 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

PP52 

EU Long Term 
GHG Emissions 
Reduction 
Strategy 

EIT Climate-
KIC 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

PP63 

EURACOAL 
Response to 
Public 
Consultation 

Euracoal 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

150 

Digital transformation of the raw material sector should be a 
corner stone of the New Industrial Strategy for Europe. Big 
data analytics and cross-sector data integration can help 
integrate circularity into the process design and operation.  

EITClimate KIC (EIT-KIC) supported by the Institute of 
innovation and technology. They are one of six KICs acting 
together as global innovation leaders, delivering world-class 
solutions to societal challenges. The EIT-KIC brings together a 
large and diverse pan-European innovation community of 
partners from business, research, academia, public and 
private organisations. The paper states that the EU should 
take a leadership role and demonstrate increased ambition 
towards achieving net-zero emissions, targeting a date much 
sooner than 2050, and coherent with the Paris Agreement 
aim of 1.5C. The paper states that to achieve the speed and 
scale of decarbonisation now needed, the EU approach 
cannot be based on step by step incremental improvements, 
but rather must trigger systematic change for 
decarbonisation. The paper states that efforts need to focus 
both on mitigation and adaption measures, at the same time 
as placing well-being an equality at the heart of the 
transformation. 
Europe faces an enormous task in transforming its coal-using 
processes. The transition will not happen overnight and 
should not compromise energy security or industrial 
competitiveness. The cost will be high in the coal regions and 
for the coal workers. Preventing impoverishment and social 
instability can be achieved only with new economic 
development based on the existing value chains. Co-
ordination of actions is necessary at the European level and, 
where possible, at the global level. EURACOAL and its 
members and the workers it represent look forward to good 
co-operation to create new economic growth and prosperity. 

 
 
PP65 

Powering the 
Green Deal: 
Eurelectric 
position paper 

Eurelectric 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Policy Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

eurolectric represent the electricity industry across Europe, 
they believe that the Green Deal for Europe should enable 
cost-efficient emissions reduction in the energy sector 
leading to full carbon-neutrality by 2050 while ensuring 
security of supply, competitive energy prices and social 
acceptance. Focus should be on decarbonising public 
transport by means of increased and improved electrification 
and charging. The decarbonising of energy demand from 
building's space heating and cooling demand should be 
upscaled. 
EuroAce welcomes that building renovation is explicitly 
mentioned in the European Green Deal. It is also positive that 
energy efficient housing is included in the activities that can 
be financed by the Just Transition Mechanism. Efficiency 
First Principle should be reinstated. The renovation wave 
needs to be made sexy, easy and affordable as well as deeply 
transformative. Open platform for the stakeholders could be 
organised around building segments.   

PP67 

The EU Green 
Deal: A Man on 
the Moon or Cosy 
at Home?  

PP68 

The European 
Green Deal needs 
to lead to 
concrete actions 
for integrated 
building 
renovations  

European 
Alliance Of 
Companies 
For Energy 
Efficiency In 
Buildings 

(EuroACE) 

EuroACE, 
European 
Alliance to 
Save Energy 
(EU-ASE), 
European 
Association 
for 
Electrical 
Contractors 
(EuropeOn), 
European 
Builders 
Confederati
on (EBC), 
European 
Building 
Automation 
and Controls 
Association(
eu.bac), 
European 
Climate 
Foundation 
(ECF), 
European 
Heat Pump 
Association 
(EHPA), 
smartEn, 
SolarPower 
Europe, 
E3G, Energy 
Cities, The 
Coalition for 
Energy 
Savings  

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Open Letter 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Collaboration of energy stakeholders asking the EU to 
propose an action plan to renovate buildings, ensuring they 
are powered by efficient, smart, renewable energy 

151 

 
 
PP71 

PP76 

PP78 

EPP VISION FOR A 
SUSTAINABLE 
PLANET CUTTING 
THE EMISSIONS 
WHILE CREATING 
JOBS 

FEAD welcomes 
the European 
Green Deal  

Glass for Europe 
Position paper on 
the European 
Green Deal 

European 
People's 
Party 

Fund for 
European 
Aid to the 
Most 
Deprived 
(FEAD) 

Other 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

I 

Other 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

We need ambitious but feasible targets to make EU carbon 
neutral by 2050. Climate policies have significant social 
impact capable of mobilising people. The impacts are both 
positive and negative. All citizens' concerns need to be heard 
and answered. Financial compensation helps to alleviate the 
social costs of de-carbonising the EU. 

FEAD believes they are a key partner in the EU public debate. 
Private waste management companies are crucial for the EU 
strategy and action plan as they are key in enabling a circular 
economy by giving waste a second life in an environmentally-
friend way. 

Glass for 
Europe 
(GFE) 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Focus on the glass industry, useful in building renovations and 
road transport. 

PP80 

Dutch reflection 
on the European 
Green Deal 

Government 
of the 
Netherlands 

National, 
regional or 
local authority 
(mixed) 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

Netherlan
ds 

III 

PP82 

First analysis of 
the European 
Green Deal 

Institute for 
European 
Environment
al Policy 
(IEEP) 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Study 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Green Law Group 
Only Cautiously 
Optimistic over 
Pledges of the 
European Green 
Deal: Will 
environmental 
justice be 
delivered 
eventually?  

Making it happen: 
Placing Analytical 
Research 
Infrastructures at 
the heart of the 
Green Deal  

PP84 

PP85 

Justice and 
Environment 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

League Of 
Advanced 
European 
Neutron 
Sources 
(LENS) 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

EU 

I 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

152 

The Dutch government welcomes the proposal for a European 
Green Deal. It urges the Commission to maintain a strong link 
between the Green Deal and the industry, research and 
finance portfolios. Concrete policy measures and the 
participation of all sectors is required for climate neutrality. 
The Dutch government identifies opportunities for 
innovation, new business and creation of new jobs, while 
improving human health and environmental protection. 
Ambitious climate targets can lead to economic growth. 
The  24 European environmental objectives considered 
unlikely to be met by 2020 (EEA, 2019). They have analysed 
the European Green Deal publication and with the use of a 
traffic light system have indicated which of the problem 
areas are adequately covered in the docuemnt. Overall, they 
consider 5 objectives poorly covered, 16 objectives fairly 
well covered and 3 objectives well covered. For each 
objective they have provided commentary detailing the 
rationale behind their assessment. 

The EGD has weak language on environmental justice. No 
major environmental goals will be attainable without laying 
emphasis on the rights of the people, and on ensuring that 
those rights are enforced, even via legal procedures. Access 
to justice should be a 
cornerstone of the EGD and Justice & Environment hopes that 
it will get appropriate attention in its implementation. 

Broad neutron research facilities already exist and aid in 
innovated investigations into new materials and processes 
that will aid the European Green Deal. Because of these 
already developed research facilities there are already well 
established links to research teams and dedicated funding 
would make it possible to strengthen and extend these links 

 
 
for use in neutron science which already makes innovation in 
relevant areas (also contributes to the proposed 25% EU 
budget target for climate mainstream across all EU 
programmes). There is an overlap between Green Deal 
innovation areas and the science of neutrons (e.g. Energy 
Storage, Photo-energy conversion, Alertnative transport 
fuels, circular economy, energy reduction for intensive 
industries such as steel, chemicals and cement). LENS would 
like funding from EC to boost development in their targeted 
programmes relevant to the Green Deal. 

The ORGALIM paper is very detailed and overall supportive of 
the Green Deal. They include multiple recommendations on 
opportunities to further enhance many of the Green Deal 
objectives. Recommendations include building strong 
acceptance with all stakeholders, aligning technology, 
financing and objectives. The paper considers reinvigorating 
Europe and driving an industrial renaissance for a clean 
planet for all.  
Science for Future expresses their criticisms towards the 
draft regulations and suggests recommendations in increasing 
the 2030 GHG emissions reduction target and all sectors must 
be accountable/responsible for reduction targets. State that 
the future of young people and the basis of life for all of us 
must be secured by means of substantiated and 
institutionalized scientific control. 
Transport has an important role to play in emission 
reductions. The paper shows the emission reduction potential 
for each transport mode in the EU and reviews policies 
needed to achieve it. The paper shows a pathway to 28% 
overall reduction in transport emissions from current levels 
by 2030. A shift to electromobility in personal cars should be 
inclusive, not leaving disadvantaged regions/neighbourhoods 
behind. 

Agricultural biomass produced sustainably in the EU should be 
considered as a raw material for biofuels. We should get rid 
of the everlasting debate food against fuel - there is no 
shortage of agricultural materials. The EU should give 
preference to oilseed and grain legume cultivation in the EU 
and this must not be undermined by questionable imports. 

PP87 

A EUROPEAN 
GREEN DEAL OF 
STRATEGIC 
FORESIGHT: 

Orgalim 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

I 

PP90 

Statement of the 
Scientists for 
Future on the 
current draft for a 
European climate 
regulation  

Scientists 
for Future 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Policy Brief 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

PP97 

T&E's vision for 
the European 
Green Deal 

Transport 
and 
Environment 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

PP101 

Green Deal – 
develop and 
implement 
strategies in 
dialogue! 
Opportunities and 
risks of EU 
climate 
protection policy 
for agriculture 

Union for 
the 
Promotion 
of Oil and 
Protein 
Plants 
(UFOP) and 
French Oil 
and Protein 
Plants 
Association 
(FOP) 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

Germany 

I 

153 

 
 
PP104 

Wind energy 
ready to help 
deliver Europe’s 
Green Deal 
Investment Plan 

Wind Europe 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Strategy/Visi
on 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

PP136 

Sustainable 
bioenergy – an 
essential part of 
the European 
Green Deal 

Bioenergy 
Europe 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

PP138 

Rail’s priorities 
for the European 
Green Deal  

Community of 
European 
Railway and 
Infrastructure 
Companies 
(CER) 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

PP140 

ETUC position for 
an inclusive 
European Green 
Deal 

European 
Trade Union 
Confederati
on (ETUC) 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

PP142 

Towards a 
European Green 
Deal and Climate 
Neutrality: 
Fortum’s views on 
the future of the 
EU climate policy 

Fortum 

Private 
enterprise 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

Finland 

III 

154 

The Wind Europe paper recognises the issue of the European 
Commissions' Sustainable Europe Investment Plan, the 
financial pillar of the European Green Deal. The paper 
describes how the EU aims to mobilise its investment over 
the next 10 years to support the transition towards climate 
neutrality by 2050. The paper notes that the wind sector is 
already contributing to a just transition in Romania where it 
is opening a training centre to reskill coal miners into wind 
workers. A similar project is being prepared in Poland. 
Stakeholder highlights that bioheat consumption is growing 
steadily across all sectors (residential, industry, commercial, 
public). An increase in GHG emission reduction targets 
coinciding  
with a holistic carbon price, to include both the building and 
transport sectors, would improve the competitiveness of both 
bioenergy and renewables and help towards reaching the 
climate goals of the EU. Bioenergy Europe highlights 
estimates that bioenergy will represent 12% in 2018, while 
other renewables will reach an 8% share while non-renewable 
sources will still account for 80% of the EU-28 gross final 
energy consumption. They also note that biomass, a very 
innovative and dynamic market that has been growing by an 
average of 3.2 percent every year since 2000. 
European Railways are key to EU transport decarbonisation 
and are asking the EU to help by changing various policies. In 
return they will further improve their energy efficiency by 
about 25% and CO2 intensity (CO2 per pkm or tkm) by about 
65-70% by 2050, further improve their processes and 
operational efficiency as well as rail services and products. 
They will also closely cooperate with other modes of 
transport to further develop mobility as a service. 
Ensuring workers participation in the governance aspect of 
the European Green Deal will be crucial to design and 
implement effective policies. Trade Unions must be formally 
and effectively involved at all stages and levels of 
organization. A just transition strategy should be launched in 
2020 to accompany the Green Deal. Social partners are 
encouraged to integrate just transition and climate change 
into the social dialogue. 
Paper highlighting Fortum’s views on the future of EU climate 
policy. Does not mention the climate pact. However, paper 
has opinion on reduction targets. Overall the following 
opinions are expressed 1) Fortum welcomes the Green Deal 
initiative and strongly advocates for the 
long-term climate neutrality target 2) Fortum supports the 
approach that covers all sectors ad EU policy areas and 
welcomes this comprehensive approach of mainstreaming 
climate action throughout the European society. Fortum also 

 
 
calls for cost-efficient emission reduction trajectory towards 
2050 and intermediate climate targets for 2030 and 2040 
based on annual carbon budgets. 

The European wind industry is strategic for the EU economy 
and energy transition. Onshore wind is the most cost-
competitive source of new electricity generation. EU should 
ensure a good operating environment for European wind 
industry to ensure its competitiveness. EU should implement 
the Clean Energy Package, remove legislative barriers, invest 
in wind energy infrastructure, and secure research and 
innovation funding to support energy transition. 

The Green Deal should include a sustainable investment 
strategy that will help companies switch technologies and 
citizens change behaviour. To finance it, the EU needs to 
increase the flexibility of its fiscal rules to encourage the 
member states to invest in the transition.  

The European Green Deal is at the same time a climate 
project, a social project, an economic project, a European 
project and an international project. It needs to engage 
citizens by redesigning markets, institutions, policies and 
financial mechanisms to promote an active role for citizens in 
the transition to a zero-carbon economy 
The EARTO paper welcomes the ambitions of the Green Deal 
and includes multiple additional recommended measures 
which should also be implemented within Green Deal. 
Measures include support for the scaling-up of existing and 
immature technologies, the promotion of new forms of 
collaboration with industry and investments in strategic value 
chains. The paper states that as the EU is the world's largest 
single market it should set standards that apply across global 
industrial value chains, giving a leading position to EU 
industries. 
ECSA suggests shifting to zero-emission shipping is possible 
but requires a radical change throughout the whole maritime 
industry and its supply chain. All maritime stakeholder efforts 
are required. The industry is ready to finance long-term goals 
for the dedicated R&D fund propose to the UN International 
Maritime Organisation (IMO). 

PP144 

Putting industrial 
leadership in wind 
energy at the 
heart of the 
European Green 
Deal 

PP145 

The European 
Green Deal needs 
a reformed fiscal 
framework 

PP147 

HOW THE 
EUROPEAN GREEN 
DEAL WILL 
SUCCEED OR FAIL 

Wind Europe 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Bruegel 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Blog Post 

Online 
paper 

Belgium 

III 

E3G 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Policy Brief 

Online 
paper 

UK 

II 

PP149 

EARTO Position 
Paper: Mobilising 
European RD&I 
Capabilities & 
Skills towards the 
European Green 
Deal  

European 
Association of 
Research and 
Technology 
Organisations 

(EARTO) 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

PP151 

POSITION PAPER:  
A Green Deal for 
the European 
shipping industry 

European 
Community 
Shipowners 
Association 
(ECSA) 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

155 

 
 
PP154 

EFB position on 
The European 
Green Deal  

European 
Family 
Businesses 
(EFB) 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Family businesses in the EU have been working together with 
government and different stakeholders to make economies 
sustainable and will keep using responsible patient capital to 
finance long-term investments for ecological innovations. EFB 
urges decision makers to engage with the business community 
to make the Green Deal work for everyone and enable Europe 
to be a front-runner in protecting the planet. EFB supports 
the continent's climate neutrality by 2050. 

PP155 

CEMR response 
Open Public 
Consultation on 
the European 
Climate Pact, 
within the 
European Green 
Deal 

Council of 
European 
Municipalities 
and Regions 
(CCRE CEMR) 

National, 
regional or 
local authority 
(mixed) 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

EU 

First 
priority 

Council of European Municipalities and Regions believe 
collaboration with citizens is vital, pledges and funding will 
help achieve climate goals 

PP156 

SMEunited’s views 
on the European 
Climate Pact 

SMEunited 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

EU 

First 
priority 

PP157 

The Green Deal in 
artistic language 

City of 
Ghent 

National, 
regional or 
local authority 
(mixed) 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

Belgium 

First 
priority 

PP158 

Rail’s contribution 
to the European 
Climate Pact 

CER 
(Community 
of European 
Railway and 
Infrastructure 
Companies) 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

Belgium 

First 
priority 

The SMEunited's paper makes a brief reference to the EGD 
but mainly focuses on their possible contribution to the aims 
of the ECP. The paper welcomes the opportunities for SME's 
to spearhead the rollout of programmes as they represent 
99% of all business in the EU. SMEunited have pledged to 
encourage their members to adopt more sustainable, circular 
and climate-neutral business models. Also SMEunited want to 
help its members to receive information about projects and 
funding opportunities to develop their eco-systems or value 
chains in a climate-friendly way. 

There are several light festivals in Europe. Ghent light 
festival with over 800,000 participants in 2018 is just one 
example. Light festivals could be a way to reach a large 
number of Europeans about climate issues and call for action. 

The CER paper welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the 
development of the ECP. Their paper presents Rail's pledge 
and related actions to strengthen the pact, by year 2030 
railway's aim is for a 20% reduction in their total CO2 
emissions from railway operations compared to the 1990 
baseline. The paper claims that the ECP should steer 
European transport on a path to full decarbonisation by 2050, 
stating that a shift to a low and increasingly zero-carbon 
transport mode like rail is a cost-effective way to achieve 
transport decarbonisation. The CER paper states that Rail is 
already the most carbon-efficient motorised way to travel, 
rail accounts for less than 0.5% of GHG emissions from 
transport although it carries 17% of freight and 8% of 
passengers. 

156 

 
 
PP167 

Can the current 
EU regulatory 
framework deliver 
decarbonisation 
of gas 

The Oxford 
Institute for 
Energy 
Studies 

National, 
regional or 
local authority 
(mixed) 

English 

Study 

Online 
paper 

UK 

III 

PP169 

Manifesto for a 
green recovery 

Greenpeace 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

Internatio
nal 

III 

PP173 

Agriculture in the 
European Green 
Deal 

Common 
Agriculture 
Policy (CAP) 
Reform 

Other 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

Ireland 

II 

157 

Incorporates multiple reports on decarbonisation in the 
natural gas sector and their findings. Key them from the 
studies are on the increase use of (blue) hydrogen that has 
been derived from natural gas or electrolysis), studies have 
shown that the use of hydrogen, including from natural gas, 
can lower the cost of decarbonisation. Legislations (like 
Renewable Energy Directive) and ETS included targets for 
renewable gases (such as biomethane, hydrogen based on 
electrolysis), but excludes other low carbon gases such as 
hydrogen from natural gas. Commission scenarios rule out any 
contribution by (blue) hydrogen generated from natural gas 
post 2030, suggesting an attempt to pick a winner (green 
hydrogen) that could fail to be developed fast enough. 
Current frameworks cannot deliver decarbonisation of gas by 
2050. Policy makers should consider how much regulation is 
necessary during the transition to a decarbonised economy, 
and ensure a genuine level playing field between low carbon 
gases, and between gas and electricity networks. 
To stand the best chance of  averting the potentially 
devastating impacts of  both climate catastrophe and global 
recession, the UK government must put at the top of  its 
agenda creating jobs, attracting private investment and 
boosting demand through an economy-wide recovery 
package. 
Stakeholder summaries the EU commissions plan to reach 
new climate ambition goals by 2050. Highlighting that there 
will be more budget for new solutions for climate, 
decarbonisation and growth must go hand in hand. An article 
read by the stakeholder states that although the EU 
investment Fund, Investment Bank and private funding will 
not be enough to induce green capital  expenditures in the 
absence of a high credible long term carbon price that puts a 
monetary value on reducing emissions. Few governments 
have had the political courage to price carbon adequately in 
the non ETS sector and the European Climate Law will 
enshrine this across EU. The climate ambitions will cause 
economic dislocation, will destroy jobs in extractive, energy 
producing and manufacturing industries but will encourage 
new investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy 
and create jobs in the service sector, therefore involve 
significant reallocation of labour across industries. 
Stakeholder also focuses on farming and food systems and 
how they will have a major part to play in delivering the EU 
Green Deal 

 
 
PP178 

Joint renewable 
industry call: 
Europe needs to 
be net-zero 
carbon by 2050; 
implementation 
must start now 

ESTELA, 
European 
Renewable 
Energie 
Federation 
(EREF), 
Association 
of European 
Renewable 
Energy 
Research 
Centre 
(EUREC), 
European 
Heat Pump 
Association 
(EHPA), 
EGEC 
Geothermal, 
Bioenergy 
Europe, 
Solar Heat 
Europe, 
Ocean 
Energy 
Europe 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Open Letter 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

PP180 

Delivering the 
Green Deal 

Orgalim 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

PP186 

A Green Deal for 
the European 
shipping industry 

European 
Community 
Shipowners’ 
Associations 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

158 

The European renewable energy industry can meet the 
decarbonisation challenge, with a wide array of technologies 
ready to be scaled up. The decarbonisation must be 
inclusive: all Europeans must benefit from a just energy 
transition, with the switch towards renewable energy serving 
to eliminate heat poverty and local pollution from fossil fuel 
combustion. The energy transition must contribute to the 
creation of plentiful, high-value jobs. 

The ORGALIM paper describes the EGD's aims as a future 
energy system that is more electric, more sector-coupled, 
more renewables-based and energy efficient, significantly 
more local but interconnected and digitally enabled. The 
paper states that a key to delivering such a power system will 
be a modern, future-proof, secure and smart energy 
infrastructure. Europe's technology industries, represented by 
ORGALIM, should provide innovative technologies for the 
generation, transmission, distribution and end use of energy. 
The paper states that the push for green energy will depend 
on sustainable investment from both the public and private 
sectors.  
An opinion on climate change in general. Main message 
expressed is that it is now time for humans to stop thinking 
we have the rights to nature. View is expressed that the 
freedom of one is halted where the freedom of another 
begins. View that this applies to the natural elements that 
surround us, including animals but these do not have the 
power of using words. The view is expressed that society is 
too driven by money and a negative view is expressed that 
the respondent is not sure if humanity will be able to  come 
to an agreement and change the rules of a game that has 
become corrupt at all levels.  

 
 
PP187 

Towards a 
European Green 
Deal Flagship 
Initiative for 
Energy 
Infrastructure  

PP190 

Industrial Climate 
Neutrality in the 
EU: Outline of an 
Integrated 
Industrial Green 
Deal 

T&D 
(European 
Association 
of the 
Electricity 
Transmission 
& 
Distribution 
Equipment 
and Services 
Industry) 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Wyns, T., 
Khandekar, 
G. 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Study 

Online 
paper 

Belgium 

III 

PP192 

Preliminary WWF 
Analysis of the 
Europe Green 
Deal 
Communication 

World Wide 
Fund for 
Nature 
(WWF) 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

Internatio
nal 

II 

PP193 

Joint statement 
on climate law 

PP194 

Adhesives and 
sealants, enablers 
of the EU green 
deal  

PP198 

AN URGENCY 
PLAN FOR THE 
CLIMATE AND 
ECONOMIC 
RECOVERY 

The alliance 
for beverage 
cartons and 
the 
environment 
/ European 
bioeconomy 
alliance 

FEICA - 
Association 
of the 
European 
Adhesive & 
Sealant 
Industry 

Climate 
Action 
Network 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Open Letter 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Professional 
consultancy, 
law firm, self-
employed 
consultant 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

Germany 

III 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

159 

Paper submitted by the French region Centre-Val de Loire 
which includes key suggestions and current actions 
undertaken to ensure successful implementation of the pact. 
Recommendations are described in more detail in the key 
topic climate pact columns. 

The Industrial Climate Neutrality in The EU (ICNEU) paper 
focuses on the industrial sector and in particular the Energy 
Intensive Industries (EII) and their current performance and 
likelihood of achieving carbon-neutral by 2050. Analysis of 
the prospects for the use of alternative materials, new 
processes, circularity, finance and investment, the efficient 
use of materials and achieving carbon-neutrality by 2050 was 
carried out and discussed. 

WWF highlights that for the Pact to be successful it must 
offer people the possibility of considering all EU climate-
related policies as a whole providing meaningful inputs. The 
Pact should not be a vehicle for citizens to commit to 
behaviour change.  

The Alliance for Beverage Cartons & The Environment 
(ABC&E) representing various sectors active in packaging and 
the bioeconomy, support an ambitious Climate Law that 
recognises the role of sustainable low carbon and circular 
materials, such renewable materials, in achieving climate 
neutrality. The (ABC&E) paper states that the EU Green Deal 
represents both an opportunity and a challenge for the 
bioeconomy sectors. The (ABC&E) support the EU on its way 
to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 to protect the future of 
our planet by providing the inputs for a low carbon 
bioeconomy, while creating a sustainable competitive 
advantage for the European industry.  
The adhesive and sealant industry invest heavily in science, 
research and innovation to advance solutions that tangibly 
reduce environmental impact and empower manufactures to 
produce in a more cost-effective and responsible way. The 
adhesive and sealant industry, while strongly committed to 
its sustainability vision, is a key enabler of the European 
Green Deal and the circular economy. 
CAN Europe is Europe's leading NGO coalition fighting 
dangerous climate change. With over 160 member 
organisations from 38 European countries, representing over 
1,700 NGOs and more than 40 million citizens, CAN Europe 
promotes sustainable climate, energy and development 
policies throughout Europe. The CAN paper cites the impact 

 
 
position paper on 
RMOAs: Towards a 
more effective 
and consistent 
RMOA process to 
support the 
ambitions of the 
European Green 
Deal 

Making the 
European Green 
Deal work for 
International 
Partnerships 

PP199 

PP201 

Cii Reach 
OSH 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Discussion 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Climate 
Action 
Network and 
13 other 
environment 
and 
development 
NGOs 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

PP204 

Position paper on 
Just Transition for 
those depending 
on fossil resource 
extraction and 
combustion 

Climate 
Action 
Network 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

of COVID-19 on people’s lives and the wider economy. The 
paper states that Europe is facing a recession and that the EU 
and member states are developing measures aiming at long-
term economic recovery. Beyond the immediate crisis, 
economic recovery measures should be developed to support 
the development of a resilient and sustainable economy, in 
line with the Paris Climate Agreement and the EGD. 

CII is Cross-Industry Initiative for Better Regulation in 
Chemical Management. They call for open and inclusive 
discussion between authorities and stakeholders on how to 
further improve Risk Management Option Analyses (RMOAs) 
and give recommendations accordingly. 

EU should work to build inclusive and equitable partnerships 
to reduce global poverty and support sustainable 
development. Mainstreaming climate should be the key, 
including scaling up public climate finance and phasing out 
finance for fossil fuels and environmentally harmful 
subsidies. Domestic ambition in reducing emissions should be 
raised. 
CAN Europe is Europe's leading NGO coalition fighting 
dangerous climate change. With over 160 member 
organisations from 38 European countries, representing over 
1,700 NGOs and more than 40 million citizens, CAN Europe 
promotes sustainable climate, energy and development 
policies throughout Europe. The CAN paper discusses the 
need for a 'Just Transition' for those depending on fossil 
resource extraction and combustion. The 'just Transition' 
must include timely action that will contribute to achieving 
its fair share of a net zero GHG emissions economy by 2040 in 
the EU and globally by 2050, while ensuring that the 
transition is happening with the support of local communities 
and that it will create new, decent and sustainable jobs. 

European Climate 
Pact: 
Euromontana 
brings ideas for a 
stronger 
involvement of 
mountain 
communities 

A European 
Climate Pact Co-
creating climate-
neutrality with 
cities and citizens  

PP214 

PP217 

Euromontana 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

EU 

EuroCities 

Other 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

I 

I 

The success of the Climate Pact relies on the involvement of 
local communities. Mountain areas are amongst the regions 
most affected by the climate change. They should not be left 
behind.  

The European Climate Pact should build upon existing EU 
initiatives. The Pact can add value by acting as an ‘umbrella’ 
initiative of local climate pacts, upscaling and replicating the 
most successful ones, and working to clear goals. An 
effective Pact must be locally driven, fostering citizens 
engagement and behavioural change to ensure ownership.  

160 

 
 
PP308 

PP309 

Our actions to 
fight climate 
change, 
regenerate nature 
and preserve 
resources 

Unilever 

Private 
enterprise 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Submission consists of webpages in a document on Unilevers 
direct actions and projects to fight climate change. No 
information directly related to the Climate pact. 

The role of smart 
cities in meeting 
objectives of the 
Green Deal 

Infrastructure 
for Spatial 
Information 
in Europe 
(Inspire) 

National, 
regional or 
local authority 
(mixed) 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

PP310 

Building the green 
data space 

Infrastructure 
for Spatial 
Information 
in Europe 
(Inspire) 

National, 
regional or 
local authority 
(mixed) 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

PP316 

DESIGNING THE 
EUROPEAN 
CLIMATE PACT 

E3G 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

Belgium, 
Germany, 
UK 

First 
priority 

PP317 

European Climate 
Foundation 
Opinions 

European 
Climate 
Foundation 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

EU 

First 
priority 

PP318 

Sociaal Energie 
Beleid 

Kees 
Pieters, Nico 
Broekema 

Other 

Dutch 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

Belgium 

First 
priority 

161 

Discusses how cities should have access to local, cross 
sectoral, environmental data to aid in policy decisions and to 
help monitor, analyse and deliver on the Green Deals 
objective. A webinar and workshop on this topic were carried 
out in June 2020. 

To use the major potential of data in support of the Green 
Deal, a Common European Green Deal data space will be 
developed. The “GreenData4All” initiative aims to review 
and possibly revise two pieces of existing legislation: Access 
to Environmental Information Directive and INSPIRE Directive. 

The E3G organisation held workshops attended by 
representatives from think tanks, trade associations, local 
authorities and non-government groups who fed into the 
report. The E3G paper cites the Paris Agreement and the 
bringing together all parts of society together to reflect on 
our current actions to fight climate change. It further states 
that the ECP could channel the same spirit by cultivating a 
permanent trans-national discussion on the road to climate 
neutrality. The paper cites The Future of Europe Conference 
and believes the ECP should feed into this work, or even be 
part of it. The EU's commitment to climate change neutrality 
has given a new orientation to the project and should be 
reflected in the instances that will define its structure. The 
paper states that the ECP should equip itself with a board. IT 
is a set of representatives from part of societies that are 
further in their transition that can relay their findings back to 
policy makers.  

Net-zero transition calls for a new approach to public 
participation in policymaking. The Climate Pact could offer 
an opportunity for this. The Commission could also support 
public participation and engagement processes at national 
level.  

Authors suggest that the measures outlined in the Green Deal 
so far would not result in meeting the CO2 reduction targets 
but would likely increase CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the 
Green Deal would result in negative impacts on the 
population, different sectors and on workers. The authors 
then present a 'social energy policy' that outlines measures 

 
 
PP319 

Igualdad de 
género - Pacto 
Europeo por el 
Clima  

Spanish 
Institute of 
Women and 
for Equal 
Opportunities 

National, 
regional or 
local authority 
(mixed) 

Spanish 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

Spain 

First 
priority 

PP320 

PP321 

SGI PROVIDERS 
AND EMPLOYERS 
FACING THE 
COVID-19 
OUTBREAK THE 
DESIGN OF AN 
EFFICIENT AND 
UNIFIED 
ECONOMIC 
RESPONSE 
Contribution de la 
Région Centre-Val 
de Loire à la 
consultation 
publique sur le 
pacte européen 
pour le climat 
dans le cadre du 
pacte vert pour 
l’Europe 

European 
Centre of 
Enterprises 
with Public 
Participation 

(CEEP) 

La Région 
Centre-Val 
de Loire 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

Other 

French 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

France 

First 
priority 

PP322 

EU Climate Pact 
Consultation 
Contribution by 
EIT Climate-KIC 

EIT Climate-
KIC 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

EU 

First 
priority 

162 

that would allow reaching Green Deal targets alongside being 
beneficial for citizens and workers 

Climate change policies have a direct impact on health and 
the social and economic wellbeing of people. However, 
gender inequality, combined with a lack of sensitivity on the 
social and economic needs of women make women more 
affected to environmental degradation. The paper proposes 
to adopt a gender inclusive perspective to the Pact's 
structure, development and actions across all areas and 
sectors and to ensure women's participation in mitigation and 
adaptation actions to prevent existing gender inequalities to 
persist. 

The crisis triggered by COVID-19 has shown how crucial the 
provision of public services and SGIs, such as healthcare, 
water, energy and waste management, is to the well-being of 
citizens and the economic resilience of the EU. Now it is 
essential to assure the provision of services as well as 
alleviate the economic impacts of the epidemic. 

Paper submitted by the French region Centre-Val de Loire 
which includes key suggestions and current actions 
undertaken to ensure successful implementation of the pact. 
Recommendations are described in more detail in the key 
topic climate pact columns. 

EIT Climate-KIC is the EU's principal innovation agency 
dedicated to tackling climate change, addressing both 
adaption and mitigation. They have a 10-year track record of 
orchestrating innovation for climate change. Their mission is 
to catalyse systemic change through innovation in areas of 
activity that have a critical impact on GHG emissions and to 
create climate-resilient communities. Their Theory of Change 
is focused on empowering people to change systems to 
enable viable alternatives at scale. The paper discusses the 
multiple educating and training programmes that they lead, 
aimed at empowering citizens with the skills and tools to 
enable them to contribute to and thrive in leading the 
programmes which will enable climate-change targets to be 
achieved. 

 
 
PP323 

WCS EU Response 
to the Public 
Consultation on 
the EU Climate 
Pact 

Wildlife 
Conservation 
Society EU 

Other 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

EU 

First 
priority 

PP324 

PP325 

FAO submission to 
the European 
Commission’s 
Public 
Consultation on 
the European 
Climate Pact 

A Climate Pact for 
Europe: an 
inclusive platform 
to accelerate 
implementation 
and galvanise 
collaborative 
climate action 
across levels and 
sectors 

Food and 
Agriculture 
Organization 
(FAO) 

Private 
enterprise 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

EU 

First 
priority 

Local 
Governments 
for 
Sustainability 

National, 
regional or 
local authority 
(mixed) 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

Internatio
nal 

First 
priority 

PP326 

A Response of the 
Olympic Sport 
Movement 

International 
Olympic 
Committee 

National, 
regional or 
local authority 
(mixed) 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

Internatio
nal 

First 
priority 

PP327 

Response to the 
open consultation 
on the European 
Climate Pact 

Interactive 
Software 
Federation 
of Europe 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

EU 

First 
priority 

PP328 

SUSTAINABILITY 
AT THE VELUX 
GROUP 

VELUX 

Private 
enterprise 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

Denmark 

First 
priority 

163 

The last remaining intact forests have a huge impact on 
climate mitigation, removing 30% of emissions every year. 
Thus, WCS EU suggests the EU climate pact should 
incorporate action to ensure the conservation of the world’s 
last remaining intact forests. This should include the 
conservation of the remaining primary forests in Europe and 
support to high priority developing countries through EU 
overseas development assistance and the new Neighbourhood 
Development and International Cooperation Instrument 
(NDICI) 
FAO stresses the central role of agriculture for the twin 
challenges of enabling development ad mitigating and 
adapting to climate change. For the European Climate Pact, 
without shifting attention from much-needed emissions cuts 
in sectors such as energy and transport, food and land-use 
systems at large are among the main areas that should be 
targeted for pledges and initiatives 
 ICLEI highlights the key role of local and regional 
governments as facilitators of the Climate Pact by (1) 
providing an inclusive space to connect the community, 
institutions and private actors, thus supporting the 
engagement of all local stakeholders, (2) introducing place-
based pledges and joint actions by different actors in local 
climate policy and plans, (3) assessing the impacts and 
contributions of implementation-driven actions and (4) 
supporting their alignment with national plans and goals. In 
this way, they can strengthen European integration and 
cooperation from a bottom-up perspective 
Sport can be a beacon for social and economic climate 
action. Sport has already had an impact in creating the 
backdrop for the necessary change, through the support of 
initiatives and its leading competitors acting as role models 
for desired behaviour. Top level sport is well placed to use its 
profile to be an advocate for change and has the necessary 
media and social links to quickly convey messages.  

ISFE highlights the video game industry is deeply engaged in 
sustainability action and efforts and would welcome the 
recognition of global initiatives, keeping participation on a 
voluntary basis 

Highlights the Important trigger action of identifying energy 
efficiency of buildings, noted that 75% of current building 
stock is energy inefficient - and most, if not all, of these 
buildings will still be standing in 2050. Energy renovation of 
such buildings is key 

 
 
PP356 

Subject: Joint 
Call to empower 
cities and regions 
in the Climate 
Pact and mobilise 
all actors towards 
decarbonisation 

PP357 

CONTRIBUTION TO 
THE EUROPEAN 
CLIMATE PACT 
CONSULTATION 

PP361 

ETUC statement 
ahead of 
European 
Commission 
proposal for a 
European Climate 
Law and Climate 
Pact 

Local 
Governments 
for 
Sustainability 
(ICLEI) , 
Eurelectric, 
European 
Forum of 
Technical and 
Vocational 
Education 
and Training 
(EFVET), 
European 
Association of 
Regional & 
Local 
Authorities 
for Lifelong 
Learning 
(Earlall), 
European 
Regions 
Research and 
Innovation 
Network 
(ERRIN), 
EnergyCities, 
EuroCities 

ERRIN 
(European 
Regions 
Research 
and 
Innovation 
Network) 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Open Letter 

OPC 
submission 

EU 

First 
priority 

The authors, representing numerous actors of the society, 
propose to act as connectors and facilitate the knowledge 
sharing through their platforms to contribute to carbon-
neutrality and a green and just society. Authors highlight that 
the Climate Pact is the best opportunity to strengthen all 
actors' collaboration and succeed in the green transition, 
which would be essential for Europe’s recovery efforts post 
COVID-19 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

This document by the coalition for energy savings responds to 
both proposals in three parts; Legislation, compliance and 
supporting tools.  

European 
Trade Union 
Confederatio
n (ETUC) 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

I 

164 

The ETUC is an organisation which speaks on behalf of 
European workers to have a stronger say in EU decision-
making. The ETUC aims to ensure that the EU is not just a 
single market for goods and services, but is also a social 
Europe, where improving the wellbeing of workers and their 
families is an equally important priority. The paper states 
that they want to keep global warming below 1.5 to 2.0C and 
avoid irreversible and disastrous consequences for our 
societies, we need to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 at 
the latest. The paper notes that 18 of the warmest years 
have occurred since 2001. These increases in temperature 
are accompanied by extreme weather events such as floods, 
droughts and wildfires that are getting more intense and 
more frequent over time. 

 
 
 
PP362 

EU:n vihreän 
kehityksen 
ohjelma – koko 
mantereen 
yhteinen haaste 

Kauppakama
ri 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

Finnish 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

Finland 

III 

PP364 

A green deal that 
works for the 
people, the 
economy and the 
planet: thoughts 
from a local 
perspective 

Julije 
Domac, 
Fedarene 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Blog Post 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

PP365 

European Green 
Deal - Will it bring 
structural change? 

Europeum 

Other 

English 

Policy Paper 

Online 
paper 

Czechia 

II 

PP366 

Shaping our 
future 

Climate 
Alliance 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

I 

It is important to mobilise all actors to work towards low-
carbon society. The Pact aims at involving the business 
community, regional actors, NGOs, industry and schools in 
supporting carbon neutrality. The Finnish Chamber of 
Commerce has taken steps to promote emission reductions. 
This autumn, it launched actions for businesses and 
communities to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035 or 2040 at 
the latest. 
FEDARENE have been showcasing the achievements of regions 
and municipalities and their energy agencies in renewables, 
energy efficiency, environment, the circular economy and 
sustainable finance. The paper states that the EU commission 
need to massively invest in the green economy, they must 
see that cities, regions and energy agencies have been front-
runners in taking action, and that they are already leading 
the transition on the ground. The paper states that in the 
first days of designing the EGD, consultation with key 
partners and stakeholders will take place and must ensure 
that local and regional bodies are very much involved.  
EUROPEUM is a non-profit non-partisan and independent 
think-tank focusing on European integration and cohesion. 
The organisation contributes to democracy, security, 
stability, freedom and solidarity across Europe as well as to 
active engagement of the Czech Republic in the EU. The 
paper cites the current situation where the EU has prepared 
a comprehensive growth strategy that has the potential to 
change the entire European economy and lifestyle of its 
citizens. In order to meet the obligations, it is crucial to be 
flexible and to keep adopting necessary measures, while 
putting pressure on others to work towards the same goal.  
The Climate Alliance is an organisation with 1,700 member 
municipalities and districts covering 27 European countries as 
well as a variety of regional governments, NGOs and other 
organisations. The paper notes that in addition to a 
commitment to climate justice via a partnership with 
indigenous peoples, each town, city and district joining 
Climate Alliance must pass a municipal resolution committing 
itself to cutting CO2 emissions by 10% every 5 years. The 
paper notes that affordable and clean energy is a major 
driver of sustainable development. The challenge lies in 
finding ways to reconcile the demand for sustainable energy 
with its impact on the environment and natural resources. 
Decreasing energy-related emissions will require an overall 
reduction in energy demand as well as a shift to integrated 
renewable energy systems based on a mix of solar, wind, 
tidal and small-scale hydropower. 

165 

 
 
PP367 

Evropski zeleni 
sporazum: med 
željami in staro 
prakso 

Dnevnik 

Private 
enterprise 

Slovenian 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

Slovenia 

II 

The New Proposal 
for a European 
Climate Law: 
Bulgaria has the 
Chance to join 
the Group of 
Winners only with 
an Аmbitious Coal 
Exit Plan 

Centre for 
the Study of 
Democracy 

Other 

English 

Blog Post 

Online 
paper 

Bulgaria 

III 

UNDER2 
COALITION 
SHAPES THE 
EUROPEAN 
CLIMATE PACT 

Under2 
Coalition 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

Internatio
nal 

I 

PP368 

PP369 

Annika 
Hedberg, 
Sofia Lopez 
Piqueres, 
Stefan Spka, 
European 
Policy 
Centre 

Other 

English 

Opinion 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

PP370 

The European 
Green Deal: A 
promising start 
and a long road 
ahead 

PP372 

EU Climate Law 
should safeguard 
local action and 
reform economic 
governance - 
Energy Cities 
proposes three 
reforms that will 
make the 
difference 

The new climate agreement has positive ambitions and ideas 
to halt negative trends in climate change and a clear 
definition of an active fiscal policy at both EU and Member 
State level. The same applies to taking into account the 
possible negative social consequences of the demand for a 
clean environment in economically less developed parts of 
Europe and the necessary safeguards. The problem arises 
when this positive development concept collides with the 
prevailing conservative economic concept of the European 
Commission and the main Member States, and the current 
fiscal rules for the euro area. 
The key positive novelty of the proposed climate legislation 
lies in the new decision-making procedure for adopting  
future  climate-related  initiatives. These will  no  longer  
require unanimity,  which  means  that  climate  sceptic  
governments  will  no  longer  be  able  to  block ambitious 
proposals. However, many uncertainties remain and a 
concrete 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is 
missing. 
Under2 Coalition members are continuing their efforts on 
climate action by providing feedback to the public 
consultation on the European Climate Pact (the “Pact”), an 
initiative that forms part of the European Green Deal. 
European Under2 Coalition regions expressed their support 
for its mission, offered more collaboration and proposed to 
build on the success of existing climate initiatives. 
Several obstacles will need to be addressed if the European 
Green Deal is to succeed. While there is a growing 
recognition of the urgency to act, the challenges cut across 
the economy and society, and require system-wide 
responses. While the Commission wishes to address the 
existing silo mentality and remedy, for example, incoherent 
legislation that undermines the European Green Deal, an 
even more comprehensive, systemic and ambitious approach 
is needed as soon as possible. 

Energy 
Cities 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Three crucial reforms to make a difference 

166 

 
 
PP375 

PP377 

Help build the 
EU’s Climate 
Pact. Consultation 
launched on how 
cities will form 
the foundation of 
the EU's Climate 
Pact 

Building a 
coalition of civil 
society and 
subnational 
authorities to 
deliver 
commitments of 
the Paris 
Agreement  
European 
Economic and 
Social Committee 

PP378 

Climate Justice 

PP379 

Leaving no one 
behind when 
implementing the 
2030 Sustainable 
Development 
Agenda 

PP380 

The EU power 
sector fully-
fledged actions to 
empower citizens 
in the Climate 
Pact 

European 
Economic 
and Social 
Committee 

European 
Economic 
and Social 
Committee 

European 
Economic 
and Social 
Committee 

Energy 
Cities 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online 
paper 

EU 

III 

Social partners 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

I 

Social partners 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

II 

If properly designed, the Climate Pact could shape new 
democratic, social and economic models for collective 
climate action in Europe. Successfully addressing the climate 
crisis will require going beyond mere energy and climate 
considerations, encouraging local authorities and their 
communities to adopt broad-based societal transition 
roadmaps. These roadmaps will be underpinned by new 
socio-economic models based on more participative and 
circular processes, short circuit supply chains and redefined 
links between citizens and their local environment.  

The EESC proposes a coalition of politics, administration and 
civil society. This is to overcome the two major problems of 
the decisions of COP 21 in Paris. First, the emissions 
reduction targets submitted by the individual Member States 
(INDCs) do not correlate with the results achieved in Paris. 
Second, despite some limited progress, the importance of 
civil society has not been sufficiently taken into 
consideration. 

Climate action needs to consider the poorest and therefore 
most affected by climate change, consumer power can only 
be harnessed when ethical alternatives just as convenient, 
accessible and usable 

Social partners 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

EU 

I 

No one is left behind, by reaching the furthest behind first 

Eurelectric 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

EU 

First 
priority 

167 

Eurelectric represents the interests of the electricity industry 
in Europe, across 30 countries. They cover electricity 
generation and distribution. They are committed to lead a 
cost-effective energy transition by: investing, transforming 
accelerating, embedding and innovating to discover the 
cutting-edge business models and develop the breakthrough 
techniques that are indispensable to allow this industry to 
lead the transition. The Eurelectric paper states that 
achieving carbon-neutrality by 2050 requires the contribution 
of all parties involved. The ECP should be a place for 
everyone to communicate the efforts they have taken so far 
and share their thoughts on climate change going forward. 
Eurelectric welcomes the idea of a Climate Pact as a best 
practice platform and suggests including tools that could 
track needs and bring solution providers. 

 
 
PP656 

Consultation 
publique ouverte 
sur le pacte 
européen pour le 
climat, dans le 
cadre du pacte 
vert pour l’Europe 

PP657 

Draft Ideas 
“European 
Climate Contest“ 

PP658 

Open public 
consultation on 
the ECP within 
the European 
Green Deal 

Conférence 
des 
Présidents 
des régions 
ultrapériphé
riques 
(CPRUP) - 
Adrachi 
Velou 

Jochen 
Bohle | 
member of 
the 
Europeans 
for Climate 
Association 

Jochen 
Bohle | 
member of 
the 
Europeans 
for Climate 
Association 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

PP667 

PP668 

CONTRIBUTION TO 
THE 

EUROPEAN 
CLIMATE PACT 
CONSULTATION 

ERRIN 
(European 
Regions 
Research 
and 
Innovation 
Network) 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

Open Public 
Consultation 

European Climate 
Pact, within the 
European Green 
Deal 

Department 
of 
Communicat
ions, 
Climate 
Action and 
Environment
, Ireland 

National, 
regional or 
local authority 
(mixed) 

French 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

France 

First 
priority 

The impact of climate change pushes for the implementation 
of adaptation and resilience measures to tackle major 
environmental shocks. 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

Germany 

First 
priority 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online 
paper 

Germany 

First 
priority 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

Belgium 

First 
priority 

Proposes an annual competition is held - "The European 
Climate Contest" to encourage reduction in the amount of 
harmful gas emissions (scope 1,2,3, of the GHG protocol). 
Funded by crowdfunded, Just Transition Fund and European 
Commission. Entry requirements is a certification by EU 
taxonomy or through an accredited national climate agency. 

Questionnaire from the Europeans for Climate Action. 
Recommends more useful information for companies, best 
means of collaboration and most effective actions of the 
climate pact. 

ERRIN highlights the importance of an ecosystem approach 
where all key actors are mobilised to work together towards 
decarbonisation. This approach is essential to ensure local 
ownership and that all the actors are working towards the 
same goal. The Pact is seen as an opportunity to strengthen 
this multi-stakeholder collaboration and accelerate the green 
transition embracing this ecosystem approach. ERRIN aims to 
change the way in which local and regional actors work 
together focusing on this ecosystem thinking and the wider 
regional development agenda 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

Ireland 

First 
priority 

Paper highlights the action that Ireland is/has taking/taken 
that align with the Climate Pact goals 

PP669 

The Alternative 
Climate Concept 

Save 
Climate 
Earth 

Trade, business 
or professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

OPC 
submission 

Germany 

First 
priority 

Introduce a new carbon currency for all citizens, essentially a 
rationing system 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Annex D.2 Papers dismissed from analysis 

A table of all the papers that have been identified as irrelevant to the European Climate Pact and will not be analysed, including key details of the paper, such as 

title and author. 

ID 

Title 

Author 

Stakeholder 
group 

Language 

Type of 
document 

Source: 
open public 
consultation/ 
Paper 

Country  

Priority 

PP83 

An EU Green 
Deal for trade 
policy and the 
environment: 
Aligning trade 
with climate 
and sustainable 
development 
objectives  

Institute for 
European 
Environmental 
Policy (IEEP) 

Research and 
academia 

English 

Study 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

PP106 

The Green Deal 
starts on the 
land 

Wolfgang 
Vogel (UFOP's 
Chairman) 

Other 

English 

Letter to 
EU 
Parliament 

Online paper 

Germany 

Dismissed 

PP172 

Achieving 
climate 
neutrality by 
2050 

AmCham eU 

Trade, 
business or 
professional 
association 

PP175 

The first 
analysis of the 
european green 
deal  

Institute for 
European 
Environmental 
Policy  

Research and 
academia 

PP185 

The European 
Green Deal and 
the role of 
concrete 
pavements in 
the new smart 
mobility 

European 
Concrete 
Paving 
Association 
(EUPAVE) 

Trade, 
business or 
professional 
association 

English 

Discussion 
Paper 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

English 

Study 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

169 

 
 
 
PP188 

PP189 

PP200 

The Energy 
Efficiency 
Package  as an 
enabler to 
deliver the 
European 
Green Deal  
To achieve 
climate-
neutrality, the 
European 
Green Deal 
must push 
electrification  
Shaping the 
Smart Sector 
Integration 
Strategy for a 
Green & Digital 
Recovery  

The Coalition 
for Energy 
Savings 

Trade, 
business or 
professional 
association 

UFE (French 
Union of 
Electricity) 

Trade, 
business or 
professional 
association 

AVERE - 
European 
Association for 
Electromobility 

Trade, 
business or 
professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online paper 

France 

Dismissed 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

PP206 

Shaping a 
sustainable 
industry 

European 
Commission 

National, 
regional or 
local 
authority 
(mixed) 

Trade, 
business or 
professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

Energy Cities 

European 
Patent Office 

Private 
enterprise 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

SQUIRE 

Trade, 
business or 
professional 
association 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online paper 

International  Dismissed 

170 

PP208 

PP209 

PP210 

“Behind the 
words” episode 
1: The Climate 
Pact 

European 
Patent Office 
joins City of 
Munich’s 
climate pact to 
cut CO2 
emissions 

The European 
Green Deal – 
Europe’s “Man 
on the Moon 
Moment”?  

 
 
PP211 

Open letter to 
party leaders: 
Post-election 
pact on climate 
change 

0 

Other 

English 

Open 
Letter 

Online paper 

UK 

Dismissed 

PP212 

A Climate Pact 
for Luddites 

Energy Cities 

Trade, 
business or 
professional 
association 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

Cities and 
regions need 
direct EU 
funding to 
accelerate a 
COVID-19 green 
recovery   

Climate targets 
and EU green 
recovery plan 
after COVID-19 

PP213 

PP215 

David Crous 

Other 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online paper 

Belgium 

Dismissed 

Francesco 
Foglia 

Other 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online paper 

Italy 

Dismissed 

PP216 

THE EU 2030 
BIODIVERSITY 
STRATEGY 

European 
Parliament 

National, 
regional or 
local 
authority 
(mixed) 

English 

Position 
Paper 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

PP218 

PP373 

Targeted 
Consultation on 
the future of 
the LIFE 

Programme 
European 
Green Deal at 
100 days – high 
in ambition, 
but not (yet) a 
game changer 

Sabina 
Potestio 

Other 

English 

Opinion 

Online paper 

Netherlands 

Dismissed 

Energy Cities 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

171 

 
 
 
PP374 

PP376 

European 
Green Deal: 
How close to 
deliver genuine 
societal 
transformation? 

Laundry, 
Sufficiency and 
the Climate 
Pact 

Energy Cities 

Energy Cities 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

Non-
governmental 
organisation, 
platform or 
network 

English 

Policy 
Paper 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

English 

Press 
Release 

Online paper 

EU 

Dismissed 

172 

 
 
 
Annex E: Question 35 list of existing 

reporting systems shared by participants 

The table below shows the stakeholder category of participants who responded to Question 35 of the 

questionnaire.  

Stakeholder group 

Academic/research institution 

Business association 

Company/business organisation 

Environmental organisation 

EU citizen 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) 

Other 

Public authority 

Academic/research institution 

Grand Total 

Count 

9 

6 

13 

2 

57 

26 

4 

22 

9 

139 

The follow list comprises all of the suggestions that were provided, with a URL link and short 

description. 

Code 

# 

Link 

Description 

C40 

1  https://www.c40.org/  

21solutions 

1 

https://www.21solutions.eu/?la
ng=en  

The  C40  Cities  Climate  Leadership  Group  is  a 
group  of  96  cities  around  the  world  that 
represents one twelfth of the world's population 
and one quarter of the global economy. 

21  Solutions  gives  organisations  advice, 
guidance  and  support  on  issues  relating  to 
sustainability  transition,  putting  people  at the 
heart of change. 

Acclimaterra  1  http://www.acclimaterra.fr/  

Arec-
nouvelleaqui
taine 

1 

https://www.arec-
nouvelleaquitaine.com/  

173 

has 

become 

The  Regional  Scientific  Committee  on  Climate 
an 
Change,  AcclimaTerra 
association  since  July  2018.  It  is  chaired  by 
climatologist  Hervé  Le  Treut  (Professor  at 
Sorbonne  University,  participating  in  the  first 
IPCC)  and  brings 
the 
five 
together   scientists from academia from 
the Nouvelle-Aquitaine 
research organizations. 

region  as  well  as 

reports  of 

OREGES  Nouvelle-Aquitaine,  a  network  of 
partners 
led  by  AREC  Nouvelle-Aquitaine, 
promotes the sharing of knowledge in the fields 
of  energy  production  and  consumption,  local 
biomass 
emissions. 
greenhouse  effect. Governed  by  the  Regional 
Council,  ADEME  and  the  State  via  DREAL 

resources 

and 

gas 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Nouvelle-Aquitaine, this network aims to bring 
together the main regional institutional players, 
data providers and carriers of public policies. 

B.A.U.M 
Consult 
GmBh 

Ifeu 

1  https://www.baumgroup.de/ 

Sustainability consultancy 

3 

https://www.ifeu.de/en/institu
t/ 

Sustainability consultancy 

BREEAM 

1  https://www.breeam.com/ 

BREEAM,  first  published  by  the  Building 
Research  Establishment  in  1990,  is  the  world's 
longest established method of assessing, rating, 
and certifying the sustainability of buildings. 

1 

https://www.bitc.ie/csr-
certification/  

The  Business  Working  Responsibly  mark  is  the 
only  independently  audited  standard  for  CSR 
and Sustainability in Ireland.  

Business 
Working 
Responsibly 
Mark 

Carbon 
Disclosure 
Project 

Carbonn® 
Climate 
Registry 

8  https://www.cdp.net/en 

2  https://carbonn.org/  

Catastoener
getico 

1 

http://www.catastoenergetico.o
rg/ 

Certificación 
VERDE - 
GBCe 

1 

https://gbce.es/certificacion-
verde/ 

Citego 

2 

http://www.citego.org/rubrique
-13_fr.html 

174 

The CDP is an organisation based in the United 
Kingdom which supports companies and cities to 
disclose  the  environmental  impact  of  major 
corporations.  It  aims  to  make  environmental 
reporting  and  risk  management  a  business 
norm,  and  drive  disclosure,  insight  and  action 
towards a sustainable economy.  

CDP  and  ICLEI  are  partnering  to  present  one 
unified  process  for  subnational  climate  action 
reporting.  This  collaboration  will  make 
reporting on climate change easier for local and 
regional governments worldwide. 

It is the web platform for managing the energy 
behavior  of  the  managed  property  park. It 
allows  you  to  manage  the  most  important 
technical-administrative 
information  of  the 
buildings managed in a single environment and 
to  build  an  archive  to  keep  the  relative 
documentation. Energy  Cadastre creates 
a 
synergistic  platform  between  the  various 
professional  roles  operating  on  the  buildings 
and the related heating systems. 

evaluating 

The GREEN tools aim to provide a methodology 
of 
the 
for 
buildings. The  different  tools  we  have  are 
intended to cover all the needs of the building 
sector in Spain. 

sustainability 

CITEGO  sees  itself  as  a  third-party  mediator, 
which  promotes  the  exchange  of  experiences 
and  the  sharing  of  knowledge  between 
practitioners,  researchers,  elected  officials, 
associations and citizens, around issues related 
to the governance of territories and their role 
sustainable 
in 

transition 

towards 

the 

 
 
of 

the 

going 

objective 

societies. This  mediation  work  is  carried  out 
with 
beyond 
institutional,  disciplinary  or  socio-professional 
compartments,  in  order  to  bring  together 
strengthen  a 
knowledge  of  action, 
transversal  approach  to  issues  and  to  nurture 
continuing education. 

to 

Covenant of 
Mayors 

1
9 

https://www.covenantofmayors.
eu/en/ 

Ecobiose 

1  https://www.ecobiose.fr/ 

The  Covenant  of  Mayors  is  a  European  co-
local  and 
operation  movement 
regional  authorities. 
the 
Covenant  of  Mayors  voluntarily  commit  to 
increasing  energy  efficiency  and  the  use  of 
renewable energy sources on their territories 

involving 
Signatories  of 

Interdisciplinary 
Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem 
Nouvelle-Aquitaine 

Scientific  Committee  on 
in 

Services 

Ecogood 

1  https://www.ecogood.org/ 

ECG  is  an  economic  model,  which  makes  the 
Common  Good,  a  good  life  for  everyone  on  a 
healthy planet, its primary goal and purpose. 

The  European  Food  Safety  Authority  is  the 
agency  of  the  European  Union  that  provides 
independent 
and 
communicates  on  existing  and  emerging  risks 
associated with the food chain. 

scientific 

advice 

The European Innovation Partnership on Smart 
Cities  and  Communities  (EIP-SCC)  is  a  major 
market-changing undertaking supported by the 
European  Commission  bringing  together  cities, 
industries,  SMEs,  investors,  researchers  and 
other smart city actors. 

The  EU  Eco-Management  and  Audit  Scheme 
(EMAS) is  a  premium  management  instrument 
developed  by  the  European  Commission  for 
companies and other organisations to evaluate, 
report,  and 
improve  their  environmental 
performance.  EMAS  is  open  to  every  type  of 
organisation eager to improve its environmental 
performance. It spans all economic and service 
sectors and is applicable worldwide. 

The  EU  emissions  trading  system  (EU  ETS)  is  a 
cornerstone  of  the  EU's  policy  to  combat 
climate  change  and  its  key  tool  for  reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively. It is 
the  world's  first  major  carbon  market  and 
remains the biggest one. 

EFSA 

1  https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en 

European 
Innovation 
Partnership 
on Smar 
Cities and 
Communitie
sEIP-SCC 
[full name 
as well 
please] 

EMAS 
environment
al 
managemen
t system 

EU Emission 
Trading 
System EU-
ETS [full 
name as 
well please] 

1  https://eu-smartcities.eu/ 

8 

https://ec.europa.eu/environm
ent/emas/index_en.htm  

5 

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/poli
cies/ets_en  

175 

 
 
European 
Energy 
Award 

4 

https://www.european-energy-
award.org/european-energy-
award  

Financial 
Times Stock 
Exchange 
Russell 
(FTSE 
4GOOD 
Index) [full 
name as 
well please] 

GHG 
Protocol 

Global 
Reporting 
Initiative 

GREEN 
ENGAGE 
system of 
Internationa
l Hotels 
Group (IHG) 
[full name 
as well 
please, not 
only 
accronym] 

1 

https://www.ftserussell.com/pr
oducts/indices/ftse4good  

6  https://ghgprotocol.org/  

3 

http://www.globalreporting.org
/ 

1 

https://www.ihg.com/content/
us/en/about/green-engage 

The European Energy Award is a methodological 
support  tool  designed  to  enhance  and  bring 
about recognition of the quality of the climate 
and energy policy that we are conducting in our 
territories. Our efforts are real and respond to 
the climate challenges of tomorrow. 

The  FTSE4Good  Index  is  a  series  of  ethical 
investment  stock  market  indices  launched  in 
2001  by  the  FTSE  Group.  A  number  of  stock 
market  indices  are  available,  for  example 
covering  UK  shares,  US  shares,  European 
markets  and  Japan,  with  inclusion  based  on  a 
range of corporate social responsibility criteria. 

Greenhouse  Gas  Protocol  provides  standards, 
guidance,  tools  and  training  for  business  and 
government  to  measure  and  manage  climate-
warming emissions. 

Initiative 

independent 
helps 

is  an 
The  Global  Reporting 
standards 
international 
businesses, 
organization 
governments 
organizations 
understand and communicate their impacts on 
issues such as climate change, human rights and 
corruption. 

that 
and 

other 

online 

innovative 

An 
environmental 
sustainability  system  that  gives  our  hotels  the 
means to measure and manage their impact on 
the  environment.  The  hotels  can  choose  from 
over 200 ‘Green Solutions’ that are designed to 
help  them  reduce  their  energy,  water  and 
waste,  and  improve  their  impact  on  the 
environment. 

Impact 
Navigator 

1 

https://kenshoo.com/impact-
navigator/  

Kea-bw 

1  https://www.kea-bw.de/ 

Impact  Navigator  measures  the  real-world 
effectiveness, or incrementality, of a marketing 
tactic in the only place that matters: the real 
world,  with  real  people,  as  part  of  a  real 
marketing  test  measuring  business  responses 
impact,  client 
that  matter 
acquisition, and brand engagement. Leave the 
guesses  and  hunches  to  your competition,  and 
speed  ahead  with  your  own  growth  strategy 
powered by real consumer insights. 

like  revenue 

KEA-BW is an independent service provider and 
pioneer  in  climate  protection,  energy  saving 
and  renewable  energies  -  from  the  country  to 
the  country. We  offer  our  broad  expert 

176 

 
 
knowledge 
companies and all citizens. 

to  ministries,  municipalities, 

A monitoring portal from the Dutch government 
that  monitors  local  and  regional  climate  and 
energie policy 

is 

The  climate  protection  planner 
the 
association-owned,  internet-based  software  of 
the  climate  alliance  for  monitoring  municipal 
climate  protection. Cities,  municipalities  and 
rural districts can use it to draw up energy and 
greenhouse  gas  balances  according  to  the 
Germany-wide standardized BISKO method.  

Natagora  aims  to  protect  nature,  more 
particularly  in  Wallonia  and  Brussels. With  a 
major  objective:  to  stop  the  degradation  of 
biodiversity and restore a good general state of 
nature, in balance with human activities. 

an 

Öko-control  GmbH 
independent, 
is 
experienced  engineering  office  in  the  field  of 
environmental  protection. The  öko-control 
consists  of  an  interdisciplinary  team  of  more 
including  graduate 
than  40  employees, 
chemists, 
graduate 
engineers, 
graduate 
geologists and graduate physicists. 

and 

Graz 

ECOPROFIT  was  developed  in  1991  in  Graz, 
Austria by the Environmental Office of the City 
of 
of 
Technology. ECOPROFIT 
cooperative 
approach  between  the  regional  authority  and 
local companies with the goal of reducing cost 
for waste, raw materials, water, and energy.  

University 
a 

Graz 

is 

The  R20  -  Regions  of  Climate  Action  is  a  non-
profit  environmental  organization  founded  in 
September  2011,  by  former  Governor  of 
California,  Arnold  Schwarzenegger,  with  the 
support of the United Nations. 

Science-based targets provide companies with a 
future-proof 
clearly  defined  pathway 
growth by specifying how much and how quickly 
they  need  to  reduce  their  greenhouse  gas 
emissions. 

to 

for 

commercial, 

Smappee  is  an  all-in-one  energy  management 
system 
and 
residential  use. 
It  gathers  data  on  solar 
production  and  energy,  gas  and  water 
consumption.  Consult  real-time  and  historical 

industrial 

Klimaatmoni
tor 

1 

https://klimaatmonitor.databan
k.nl/dashboard/  

Klimaschutz-
Planer 

1 

https://www.klimaschutz-
planer.de/ 

Misc. 

2
2   

Natagora 

1  https://www.natagora.be/ 

Oeko-
control 

2  https://www.oeko-control.com/  

Ökoprofit 

1  http://www.oekoprofit-nrw.de/ 

Regions20 

1  https://regions20.org/  

Science 
Based 
Target 
Initiative 

5 

https://sciencebasedtargets.org
/ 

Smappee 

3  https://www.smappee.com/  

177 

 
 
 
Städtetag 

1  http://www.staedtetag.de/  

Student 
Energy 

1  https://studentenergy.org/ 

Test-achats 

1  https://www.test-achats.be/ 

UN Global 
Compact 

1 

https://www.unglobalcompact.o
rg/ 

Under2coalit
ion 

2 

https://www.under2coalition.or
g/ 

1  https://www.unmgcy.org/  

data in the Smappee App or Dashboard. Control 
appliances and loads to save energy and money. 

The Deutscher Städtetag is an organization that 
represents  interests  of  cities  in  Germany. It 
started  in  1905,  dissolved  in  1933,  then  re-
formed  in  1945.  As  of  2019  some  200  cities 
comprise its membership. 

Student  Energy  empowers the  next generation 
of  leaders  who  are  accelerating  the  transition 
to  a  sustainable,  equitable  energy  future.  We 
work  with  a  network  of  50,000  young  people 
from over 120 countries. 

Test  Aankoop  or  Test  Achats  is  a  Belgian  non-
profit  consumer  organization  which  promotes 
consumer  protection. It  was  founded  in  1957 
and  publishes  research 
in  a  subscription 
magazine 

The  United  Nations  Global  Compact  is  a  non-
binding  United  Nations  pact  to  encourage 
businesses worldwide to adopt sustainable and 
socially  responsible  policies,  and  to  report  on 
their implementation. 

The Under2 Coalition is a global community of 
state  and  regional  governments  committed  to 
ambitious climate action in line with the Paris 
Agreement. 

Established  in  1992,  the  United  Nations  Major 
Group  for  Children  and  Youth  is  the  United 
Nations  General  Assembly  mandated,  official, 
formal and self-organised space for children and 
youth  to  contribute  to  and  engage  in  certain 
intergovernmental  and  allied  policy  processes 
at the United Nations. 

1  https://www.wbcsd.org/ 

2  https://www.worldgbc.org/ 

1  https://www.wri.org/ 

The  World  Business  Council  for  Sustainable 
Development is a CEO-led organization of over 
200 international companies. The Council is also 
connected to 60 national and regional business 
councils and partner organizations.  

Green Building Councils are independent, non-
profit organisations made up of businesses and 
organisations  working  in  the  building  and 
construction industry. 

The World Resources Institute is a global research 
non-profit  organization  established  in  1982  with 
funding from the MacArthur Foundation under the 
leadership  of  James  Gustave  Speth.  WRI's 

178 

UN Major 
Group for 
Children & 
Youth 
(UNMGCY) 
[full name 
as well 
please, not 
only 
accronym] 

World 
Business 
Council for 
Sustainable 
Developmen
t  

World Green 
Building 
Council 

World 
Resources 
Institute 

 
 
X Degree 
Compatible 

2 

https://www.right-
basedonscience.de/en#:~:text=X
%2DDegree%20Compatibility%20(
XDC)&text=based%20on%20scien
ce%2C%20makes%20it,or%20portf
olio%20to%20climate%20change.
&text=The%20direct%20integrati
on%20of%20a,or%20portfolio%20o
n%20climate%20change.  

activities  are  focused  on  seven  areas:  food, 
forests, water, energy, cities, climate and ocean. 

The  software  of  the  Frankfurt-based  climate 
change startup, right. based on science, makes 
it  possible  to  calculate  the  contributions  of  a 
company or portfolio to climate change. Results 
are expressed in a tangible °C number. 

179 

 
 
 
 
LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-76-27023-2 

doi:10.2834/008230  ML-06-20-097-EN-N 

© European Union, 2020 
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  The reuse policy of European Commission 
documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of the European 
Union (*), permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You 
can contact this service: 
- by Freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 
- by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available 
on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may 
be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en ). 

EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the 
official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu  

Open data from the EU 
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes.