Subscribe
Global Edition
AI IN SOCIETY

Denmark

Europe & Central Asia · lower risk group · 12 indicators, 2010–2022

Ranked #21 of 24 on the AWPRI, with a score of 0.364 in 2022. A higher score means heavier animal use, weaker welfare governance, or research tilted further towards automation.

Risk Profile

AWPRI 20220.364
Rank#21 / 24
L1 · Animal-use exposure0.651
L2 · Governance capacity0.118
L3 · AI amplification0.323
Range 2010–20220.284–0.373
Radar chart of Denmark's score on each of the 12 AWPRI variables in 2022, drawn against the 24-country mean.123456789101112

Variable scores in 2022. The solid shape is Denmark and the dashed shape is the 24-country mean. A higher score means heavier exposure, weaker governance or a stronger tilt towards automation. The range chip above gives the highest and the lowest composite score this country has recorded across 2010–2022, which describes the country's own history and is not a confidence interval. Point at any vertex to see the variable's name and scores. The numbered key is below the chart.

  1. 1Farmed animals slaughtered per capita
  2. 2Aquatic animal share of flesh supply
  3. 3Meat supply per capita
  4. 4Animal share of protein supply
  5. 5Animal welfare legislation, stock
  6. 6Rule of law
  7. 7Animal welfare legislation, five-year flow
  8. 8Civic space
  9. 9Civil liberties
  10. 10AI research intensity
  11. 11Precision agriculture research intensity
  12. 12Animal welfare research base

Variable Breakdown

L1. Animal-use exposure (four variables)
Farmed animals slaughtered per capitapanel mean 0.488 · middle third of the panel · weight 0.0833 · direct welfare pathway0.563
Aquatic animal share of flesh supplypanel mean 0.416 · lower third of the panel · weight 0.0833 · direct welfare pathway0.294
Meat supply per capitapanel mean 0.570 · upper third of the panel · weight 0.0833 · direct welfare pathway0.746
Animal share of protein supplypanel mean 0.744 · upper third of the panel · weight 0.0833 · direct welfare pathway1.000
L2. Governance capacity (five variables)
Animal welfare legislation, stockpanel mean 0.433 · lower third of the panel · weight 0.0667 · direct welfare pathway0.191
Rule of lawpanel mean 0.327 · lower third of the panel · weight 0.0667 · indirect welfare pathway0.000
Animal welfare legislation, five-year flowpanel mean 0.605 · middle third of the panel · weight 0.0667 · direct welfare pathway0.393
Civic spacepanel mean 0.222 · lower third of the panel · weight 0.0667 · indirect welfare pathway0.001
Civil libertiespanel mean 0.224 · lower third of the panel · weight 0.0667 · indirect welfare pathway0.006
L3. AI amplification (three variables)
AI research intensitypanel mean 0.501 · middle third of the panel · weight 0.1111 · assumed welfare pathway0.474
Precision agriculture research intensitypanel mean 0.369 · lower third of the panel · weight 0.1111 · assumed welfare pathway0.295
Animal welfare research basepanel mean 0.555 · lower third of the panel · weight 0.1111 · assumed welfare pathway0.201

Each bar is this country's score on the 0 to 1 scale, which is the country's position between the lowest and the highest value any of the 24 countries recorded in 2022. A score of 1 means that no country in the panel stood further along that variable in that year, and does not mean that the underlying quantity reached any absolute maximum. The welfare pathway states how the variable connects to animal welfare. A direct variable counts animals or counts the law that covers animals. An indirect variable measures a condition under which welfare law is enforced or contested. An assumed variable is a proxy whose link to welfare outcomes this project asserts and has not demonstrated. The full statement for each variable is in the codebook.

What Moves This Country's Score

Pushing the score up

  • Animal share of protein supplyscore 1.000 vs panel mean 0.744 · weight 0.0833 · +0.0214 of the composite · L1. Animal-use exposure
  • Meat supply per capitascore 0.746 vs panel mean 0.570 · weight 0.0833 · +0.0146 of the composite · L1. Animal-use exposure
  • Farmed animals slaughtered per capitascore 0.563 vs panel mean 0.488 · weight 0.0833 · +0.0062 of the composite · L1. Animal-use exposure

Pulling the score down

  • Animal welfare research basescore 0.201 vs panel mean 0.555 · weight 0.1111 · −0.0394 of the composite · L3. AI amplification
  • Rule of lawscore 0.000 vs panel mean 0.327 · weight 0.0667 · −0.0218 of the composite · L2. Governance capacity
  • Animal welfare legislation, stockscore 0.191 vs panel mean 0.433 · weight 0.0667 · −0.0161 of the composite · L2. Governance capacity

Each figure is the variable's weight in the index multiplied by its distance from the 24-country mean in 2022. Added up over all 12 variables they come to -0.1001, which is exactly Denmark's distance from the panel's mean composite of 0.464. Because the weights differ between layers, a variable can be further from the mean than another and still move the score less. These figures are accounting terms and not causal estimates. The figures state which components of the index this country's score is made of, and do not state what would happen to animals if the underlying quantity changed.

Historical Trajectory and 2030 Trend

The solid line is the observed AWPRI score, plotted at one point per year. The dashed line is an ordinary least squares trend fitted to those 13 points and extended to 2030. The shaded band is the 95 per cent prediction interval around that fitted line, and is not an interval on the index itself. Where the slope is not distinguishable from zero the projection carries no information about direction and the chart says so. Point anywhere on the chart for year-by-year values.