Climate advisory committees in European climate governance: Expertise, representation and co‐production

Abstract This article examines the institutional design and statutory mandates of Climate Advisory Committees (CACs) in Denmark, Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom through comparative legal analysis. The CACs share the common feature of operating as boundary institutions mediating between scientific knowledge and policy implementation, with implications for climate governance. Through analysis of primary legal documents, official publications and governmental responses, the article demonstrates that CACs consistently encounter difficulties translating scientific advice into substantial policy change when recommendations conflict with economic interests embedded in legal frameworks. Despite variations in institutional design—including different appointment processes, mandate scope, and legal foundations—all four CACs face similar implementation challenges in sectors such as agriculture, forestry, aviation and transport. The article argues that these systematic constraints indicate limitations in current approaches to expert climate advice, as legal frameworks actively prioritise economic values while marginalising ecological and intergenerational considerations. The findings suggest that effective climate governance requires institutional innovations that address the underlying legal constitution of values rather than relying solely on improved scientific expertise or institutional design modifications.