Abstract
In line with an international trend, climate change has accelerated the previously hesitant introduction of democratic innovations into the Austrian political system. Participatory instruments such as citizens' councils and assemblies are increasingly employed both on the decentralized level (Vorarlberg and Vienna) and nationwide. They complement representative democracy and, acting as mini-publics, contribute to shifting mindsets through deliberation, thereby achieving a social mandate for a more ambitious climate policy. Apart from Vorarlberg, where participatory democracy has been enshrined in the state constitution since 2013, there is no tailored legal framework for these processes. This ultimately leads to a loss of legitimacy for participatory instruments and affects acceptance and governance success. Drawing on existing evaluations, literature and interviews, we discuss the role participatory processes play for the acceptance of climate measures, highlight existing hurdles and limitations of the current framework and propose to anchor these processes within the legal and constitutional framework to support deep transformation. Our examples from Austria highlight that gradual experimentation can pave the way for more robust democratic innovations in other countries too.
1 Introduction
Climate change has catalyzed a new wave of democratic innovation in Western democratic systems (; ): Governments and civil society actors increasingly turn to deliberative mini-publics, such as citizens' assemblies and councils, to deliberate on complex, long-term policy choices. Examples from Ireland, France and the United Kingdom () as well as Germany and Scotland () illustrate the influence of these climate assemblies on policymaking. Citizens' councils and assemblies are thus proving to be a relevant tool in building more sustainable societies. Through their social representativeness and the methods of deliberation they contribute to transforming mindsets in the context of the climate crisis, which involves reshaping values, behavior and narratives. This transformation of mindsets is relevant for effectively responding to the climate crisis (). Improving participatory instruments and—as we want to show—anchoring them in the legal system are important prerequisites for the success of mitigation strategies and adaptation measures.
This transformative potential extends directly to the circular economy agenda. Scholars increasingly argue that a genuine transition toward circularity cannot rest on technocentric, resource-efficiency measures alone, but requires a parallel transformation of political and social structures, therefore a shift from a narrowly conceived circular economy toward what has been termed a “circular society” (). The concept of circular society describes the socio-ecological transformation of society according to the principle of circularity (cf. ). Within this framework, the democratization of decision-making over resource use, wealth and power is identified as one of the central strategies through which circularity can be operationalized, alongside the redistribution and revaluation of socio-ecological cycles (cf. ). Citizens' councils and assemblies are thus not only instruments for building acceptance of climate measures but also candidate institutions for democratizing the governance of circular resource cycles more broadly (cf. ).
Climate assemblies' influence on policymaking depends on a number of factors, among them the power of political actors and the specific political context of the climate assembly. Another important factor in the influence of climate assemblies on politics is the existence of established and legitimate channels of communication between democratic innovation and the political establishment. Therefore, the existence, form, and use of the “interface” with traditional political institutions are key. The constitutional and legal embeddedness of democratic innovations co-constitutes these “interfaces”.
At the same time, there is scholarly skepticism concerning the influence of citizens' councils and assemblies on politics, their susceptibility to elite influence, and rigid design features being unsuitable to local contexts (cf. ; ). These challenges are especially pronounced in fragile and conflict-affected settings (cf. ). However, the vast majority of survey results show a lot of different impact strands—if the concept of impact was broadly defined (as done by ): Citizens' assemblies can influence the content and quality of political discourse, create a safe space for discussion, resolve conflicts, generate new arguments, challenge and clarify deeply rooted assumptions, and promote a focus on the common good (cf. ). Most interesting for our research: the way in which citizens' assemblies are organized, conducted and integrated into the politico-legal system also affects the legitimacy of instruments of traditional democracy (cf. ).
Against this international backdrop, Austria offers a revealing case of a political system in which climate imperatives have recently accelerated the previously hesitant adoption of democratic innovations. Prominent examples are the National Climate Assembly, the citizens' council Climate Future in Austria's westernmost state Vorarlberg and the Vienna Climate Teams.1 Participatory instruments such as citizens' councils and assemblies are being employed to increase popular acceptance, as well as acceptance within political parties and governing coalitions, for consistent and far-reaching transformative measures. As ) argue, these instruments can be used to achieve a “social mandate” for a more ambitious climate policy.
However, Austria's institutional landscape remains uneven. With the notable exceptions of Vorarlberg (since 2013), and, to a lesser extent, Salzburg (2016) and Carinthia (2017), where participatory democracy is mentioned in the State constitution, there is no comprehensive legal framework governing these processes (cf. ). This ultimately leads to a loss of legitimacy for citizens' councils and assemblies and affects acceptance and governance success.
Our research is based on the hypothesis that a stronger legal foundation of democratic innovations would increase the acceptance of proposed ambitious climate protection measures among both the public and representatives of the political system as well as administration. In doing so, this paper responds directly to the broader imperative of transforming mindsets for sustainable and circular societies. Citizens' councils and assemblies are not only tools for generating policy acceptance; they are sites of deep civic learning through which participants and the political communities they represent develop the values, narratives, and sense of collective responsibility that a sustainable future requires. While our empirical focus is Austria, the lessons drawn are transnational: legally embedded deliberative processes offer a replicable model for any democracy seeking to build durable social mandates for the transformative change that the climate crisis demands.
This brief research report on our ongoing project draws on existing literature and evaluations of the mentioned climate-related citizens' councils and assemblies to discuss issues of acceptance and governance of these democratic innovations. To do this, we first detail the methods we used (2). Based on this, we provide our results, which consist of the relevant state of research (3.1) and an analysis of existing Austrian cases of citizens' councils and assemblies tasked with working on climate issues (3.2). Next to giving an insight into their mandate and the procedure, we specifically address the issue of the legal and constitutional anchoring and embeddedness of the processes. Our brief research report concludes (4) with results and recommendations for further analysis.
2 Methods
Our research is primarily based on a literature review of previous empirical research that had been carried out to study and evaluate democratic innovations dealing with climate issues in Austria (; , ; ). These studies analyze attitudes and acceptance of climate policy, using population surveys, and qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews. As the focus, questions and methods slightly differ between these studies, their results are comparable to a limited extent only. However, we are not concerned with comparability between studies, but rather with drawing new insights into acceptance research from previous evaluations. What they have in common is that the question of legal anchoring has usually only been touched upon marginally or omitted entirely (; being the exception but addressing only the Viennese example).
In our current project, which this brief research report is based upon, we are investigating this omission by comparatively analyzing the relevant legal and constitutional framework and interviewing (again) former participants of democratic innovations and administrative staff explicitly on this issue. Within our ongoing project, we thus supplement our secondary analysis of previous evaluations with further interviews with around a dozen people. The interviewees are selected based on content-related considerations (theoretical sampling, cf. ). The interviews are conducted in accordance with the guidelines developed beforehand enabling partial structuring and (re)focusing; it ensures thematic comparability across the interviews (). The interviews are roughly coded and evaluated using content analysis and theme-centered analysis (cf. ).
To analyze the constitutional and legal anchoring and embeddedness of democratic innovations in Austria, we conduct a comparative legal analysis of the framework for climate councils and assemblies in Austria. This analysis encompasses the Federal Constitution, the relevant State Constitutions as well as existing implementing acts on the sub-constitutional level, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the legal landscape governing participatory democratic processes in Austria. By comparing and synthesizing these legal sources, we aim to identify both the opportunities and constraints within the legal framework. This contributes to a nuanced understanding of how legal structures affect democratic innovations in climate governance and thus also the acceptance of the resulting climate measures.
3 Results
3.1 State of the research
3.1.1 Research on citizens' councils and assemblies
Citizens' councils and assemblies have sparked a lot of research in the past years, as evidenced recently by the De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens' Assemblies (Reuchamps et al., 2023). Rather than giving an overview of all issues discussed in scientific literature, our aim here is to highlight some points crucial to our research objectives. These include the relevance of participation in the form of citizens' councils and assemblies for the acceptance of climate policy and the issue of institutionalization of these democratic innovations.
We are aware that there are significant methodological and procedural differences between citizens' councils (as practiced in Vorarlberg and the Vienna Climate Teams) and citizens' assemblies (as in the case of the National Climate Assembly) (on definitions 3 et seq). Citizens' assemblies are known as “mini-publics” () in which a group of diverse, randomly selected (i.e., stratified random sampling) citizens deliberates on an issue of public interest (). An initial information and learning phase is followed by a consultation and a concluding phase as a strong deliberative momentum, and a members' final report including recommendations (cf. ). On the other hand, citizens' councils are based on the method “Wisdom Council” established by ) mainly preoccupied with the phase of “dynamic facilitation” stipulating everyday knowledge as creativity among the participants. Therefore, the main differences between these two instruments lie in the duration and depth of the information phase and deliberation. While citizens' councils usually only meet for one or 2 days, citizens' assemblies are processes that last several weeks or even several months. At the heart of all these democratic innovations is deliberation, stressing that democracy “is not just about the making of decisions through the aggregation of preferences” but “also about processes of judgment and preference formation and transformation within informed, respectful, and competent dialogue” (: 3). However, the aim of our research is not to evaluate which method is better suited for transforming mindsets for sustainable and circular societies, but rather to show that, in any case, they need to be enshrined in law to be successful and produce systemic change, and to outline what this legal foundation might look like.
3.1.2 Acceptance research—participation as a relevant acceptance factor for climate policy
In a democracy, the transformation into a sustainable economy and society can only work with sufficient support from the people, which is what acceptance research in political science deals with. Although there are voices in democratic theory and political practice that tend to view the climate crisis as a problem best addressed through technocratic solutions and deny the right of citizens to have a say in such a complex matter (cf. ; ), the overwhelming majority of current research on the democracy-climate nexus shows that democracies tend to generate better climate policy outputs than autocracies, in terms of adoption of policies, laws and regulations (; ). However, effectively addressing the climate crisis requires adopting policy measures that have an impact on collective human behavior, involving restrictions and encroaching on freedoms that have hitherto been guaranteed. For them to be successful in the long term, they must be met with acceptance.
Acceptance research measures and describes the factors influencing social acceptance of climate policy measures and instruments, such as policy design, communication, and participatory instruments (cf. ). While acceptance is a multi-dimensional concept that encompasses social, political, legal, environmental, technical and economic factors (cf. ), participation has been identified as a highly relevant acceptance factor when it comes to politico-legal legitimacy (cf. ). Our research focuses on this and expands previous analyses by adding another factor, namely the legal design of participatory instruments.
We investigate whether and to what extent the legal anchoring of climate assemblies and councils, i.e., the institutionalization and thus perpetuation of participation, increases the acceptance of climate policy measures—among the population but also concerning public officials and politicians faced with organizing such events and having to respond to their outcomes. In doing so, we are following the call first made by ) and then stressed by ) for a surge in research on “governable acceptability factors”. Although neither of them elaborates on the topic of legal frameworks, what could be a more politically influenceable acceptability factor than institutionalizing democratic innovations? Especially, when considering that peoples' perceptions of a policy instrument's impacts contribute to its acceptance (cf. )?
To this end, we build on previous acceptance research: Recent studies (e.g. ) show that people with greater knowledge about climate change and those who feel well informed about a measure tend to be more supportive of stringent climate protection policies. Democratic innovations such as citizens' councils and assemblies—especially when they last several weeks—can be regarded as instruments of political education, which are considered particularly necessary in matters relating to the climate crisis (cf. ; ). Participation increases knowledge and, as a result, acceptance of stringent climate protection policies.
Citizens' councils and assemblies also answer peoples' desire for more participation. Admittedly, the impact of participation on the acceptance of climate policy instruments has been researched little empirically, but the few existing findings (cf. ; , ) indicate that participatory elements have a slight positive effect on the acceptance of measures. Depending on their design, climate assemblies can have a positive effect on the acceptance of stringent climate protection measures, as shown by ).
This acceptance dynamic is equally salient for the circular economy transition. The European Commission's 2020 Circular Economy Action Plan itself recommends embedding circular economy questions within regular citizen dialogues, recognizing that public participation can inform decision-making with the cultural values and knowledge needed to accelerate circular practices (). Yet, as with climate assemblies, circular economy-related participation formats largely remain informal and lack robust legal anchoring, which limits their capacity to generate durable political legitimacy for circularity policy (cf. ). Our focus on the constitutional and legal embeddedness of climate-related citizens' councils and assemblies in Austria therefore speaks directly to this broader circular economy governance challenge: legally anchored deliberative processes could function as an institutional bridge between resource governance and democratic legitimacy, addressing what Jaeger-Erben and colleagues (2021) describe as the missing “circular society” dimension of current circular economy policy.
3.1.3 Broader democratic benefits of citizens' councils and assemblies
Moreover, previous studies show that deliberative processes can support and promote positive political values, for example in relation to political self-efficacy and confidence in one's own abilities as a citizen and in the political system in general. While these effects on participants have been demonstrated mainly in their short-term effects (cf. ), there is also evidence of the lasting impact of the deliberative experience (cf. )—whereby the increased trust in politics can be located in a specific context, i.e., it relates to the policy area that was under discussion (cf. ). In addition, regarding the question of trust, there are indications—albeit to a lesser extent—of spillover effects on the broader public (cf. ). The latter occur mainly in numerically large and longer lasting or even institutionalized processes, which ensure greater media attention and responsiveness by politicians. And this is where we find the first indication of the importance of institutionalized processes. We draw, for example, on the research by ), whose study shows that a connection to traditional political institutions is of crucial importance. This connection can be established most effectively by linking assemblies with a referendum (as done in Ireland) or incorporating them as a new part of the political system through constitutional reform (as done in the German-speaking Community of East Belgium, cf. ; ).
3.1.4 Research on institutionalization of citizens' councils and assemblies
In line with the increase of citizens' councils and assemblies, there has been an increase of research on the institutionalization of these processes, focusing both on internal design issues such as decision-making, duration of the deliberation etc. and external design issues such as the embeddedness of these procedures into the general political landscape (; ; ). It has been stressed that democratic innovations are better suited to contribute to the legitimacy of policymaking if they are institutionalized (; ). Institutionalization can take many forms: Boswell et al., (2023) indicate that it matters how formalized (legally codified) climate assemblies are. To increase acceptance of proposed measures, we do not only need a strong political mandate and a high-quality process but also procedural legitimacy (: 167), which in a democracy must be based on the legal framework. Nevertheless, democratic innovations dealing with climate issues are so far held mostly in a political and legal reality that Lewis et al., (2023) rightly call “messy”. This is the point of departure for our research focus on constitutional and legal anchoring and embeddedness of democratic innovations.
3.1.5 Research on constitutional and legal anchoring and embeddedness
Rules on and of democratic processes and institutions are a typical component of constitutional law, both in the formal sense of being enshrined in a supreme and rigid legal document (“big-c” Constitution) and in the more material sense of being central to the functioning of the state (“small-c” constitution) (on the distinction: ). Accordingly, comparative constitutional scholarship deals with questions of the interrelation between constitutional law and democratic theory (). National constitutions often provide very specific rules on the functioning of the democratic system that are difficult to amend. This might be one of the reasons why as of yet, even though citizens' councils and assemblies are increasingly used within climate governance, we still perceive a lack of specific constitutional rules (“anchoring”) and scholarship on these democratic innovations. Even if they are not specifically addressed by constitutional law, they are not situated in a legal vacuum, but must maneuver the existing constitutional legal, and thus political landscape (“embeddedness”), which can lead to frictions (; ).
To highlight the relevance of the constitutional and legal framework for democratic innovations concerning climate policy and to study its impact on these processes, we compare and analyze examples of citizens' councils and assemblies from Austria. Given that Austria is a federal state, there is some variation in the applicable constitutional framework, consisting of both the Austrian Federal Constitution and the State Constitutions. However, the Austrian state is characterized as strongly centralized. In relation to democratic innovation, this is especially visible in the strict limits established by the Austrian Constitutional Court in its jurisprudence (cf. ; ), for example concerning the introduction of new instruments of direct democracy, such as binding referenda on the municipal level (VfSlg 20.406/2020). In fact, Vorarlberg became a pioneer in citizens' councils primarily because the Constitutional Court had prohibited introducing popular legislation based on the Swiss model (VfSlg 16.241/2001). Democratic innovation began as a stopgap solution, so to speak. These rather restrictive judgements and their bypassing form the backdrop for other democratic innovations and their legal anchoring.
Austria being a federal state also has upsides for democratic innovation, as comparing examples from within the federal system allows for mutual learning (). This is evidenced by the trend to introduce participatory democracy into States' Constitutions, starting with Vorarlberg in 2013 and continuing with Salzburg in 2016 and Carinthia in 2017. Given this federal dynamic, findings by ) become particularly interesting. According to their research, climate protection instruments are more readily accepted by the public when other jurisdictions and government units also introduce them.
3.2 Climate democracy in Austria: acceptance factors and constitutional framework
3.2.1 Overview
Whether in the Vorarlberg citizens' council Climate Future, the National Climate Assembly or the Vienna Climate Teams (working by the methods of a citizens' council), democratic innovations are increasingly employed as a tool to address the climate crisis. Whilst the setup of these processes and their embeddedness into the political landscape differ, the foundational concept remains the same: a representative cross-section of the population is invited by sortition to draft and discuss recommendations for climate-protecting measures. The following section details examples of citizens' council and assemblies related to climate policy in Austria, all of them carried out between 2021 and 2025. We highlight how the different designs and their varying constitutional and legal anchoring and embeddedness impact their outcomes and acceptance.
3.2.2 Vorarlberg citizens' council climate future
To date, citizens' councils are loosely anchored in only three Austrian state constitutions, namely in Vorarlberg, Salzburg and Carinthia (cf. ). Vorarlberg has been experimenting with citizens' councils for some years and established the Office for Future Issues in 2006 as part of the State Government and tasked with organizing citizens' councils. In 2013, the Vorarlberg state constitution was amended to reflect this commitment toward participatory democracy (LGBl No. 14/2013; cf ): Article 1 was given a new paragraph 4, stating that “(t)he state is committed to direct democracy in the form of referendums, plebiscites and public consultations, and also promotes other forms of participatory democracy” (authors' translation).
At the same time, the state government's guidelines on convening and conducting citizens' councils were adopted (cf. ). Whilst these guidelines are not directly enforceable by the citizens, they are legally binding for the state administration (). The guidelines specify the objectives of citizens' councils and lay down the rules for their establishment and implementation. Paragraph 5a guarantees citizens the right to take the initiative to establish a citizens' council by collecting at least 1,000 declarations of support. If this milestone is reached, state administration is obliged to initiate a citizens' council.
This is how the citizens' council Climate Future came into being, which we provide as an example. It was initiated in spring 2021 by submitting 1,278 declarations of support (cf. ). The initiators referred to the climate emergency previously declared by the Vorarlberg state parliament in July 2019. In line with a global trend (), this parliamentary declaration is mostly symbolic, even though it can have indirect legal consequences, such as further legitimizing citizens' councils and the results of their deliberations. In accordance with its mandate, the State Government had to organize the process that took place in July 2021.
Our own research and other studies (cf. ) show that the Vorarlberg citizens' councils contribute to shifting mindsets and promoting acceptance of climate measures. With regard to the three levels of social learning (cognitive, normative and relational) in relation to the climate crisis (cf. ), it is primarily the normative level that shows significant changes: participation in the citizens' council Climate Future changed the attitudes of more than half of the participants toward the climate crisis. Furthermore, the legal framework and the years of practice that have accompanied this institutionalization contribute to the acceptance of the instrument. Finally, it is an innovation that can be initiated not only from above but also bottom-up, by citizens themselves. Without a specific legal framework, this would not be possible.
3.2.3 National climate assembly
Austria's first nation-wide citizens' assembly, the National Climate Assembly, had started as an answer to the demand made in the “popular petition on climate issues” (“Klimavolksbegehren”) signed by 380,590 people, i.e., 5.96 % of the eligible voters, in 2020. As it had thus passed the hurdle of 100,000 signatures, it had to be dealt with by the Austrian National Council (parliament) according to the Constitution. On March 26, 2021, the parliament voted on a resolution and requested the federal government to implement a variety of measures including the “establishment of a citizens” climate assembly as a participatory process to discuss and develop concrete proposals for the climate protection measures necessary to achieve the goal of climate neutrality in 2040′ (authors' translation, cf. ). The resolution was supported by the government coalition and one opposition party. This subsequently led to numerous implementation problems for the process and, above all, for the results of the Climate Assembly: resolutions are only politically binding, not legally. They are recommendations and can thus contribute to monitoring or correcting the government's course. If the government disregards a resolution, the parliament could only punish it with a vote of no confidence.
This lack of legal binding force even in the process itself resulted in a relatively weak mandate given to the National Climate Assembly and only partial political support. Thus, the ownership of the process became associated from the onset with the Federal Ministry of Climate Action, the political party controlling the ministry (Greens), and the person of the minister (cf. ).
3.2.4 City of Vienna: Vienna climate teams
The Vienna Climate Teams, initiated in 2022 by the City of Vienna, are a participatory instrument designed to engage residents in climate action at the local level. This initiative allows districts to access a dedicated budget for climate-related projects, enabling citizens to propose, discuss, and prioritize measures that address local environmental challenges. The selection of ideas is done by a jury consisting of randomly selected inhabitants representative for the district, which form the “climate team”. The outcome of its discussions is then presented to the district council (a constitutionally established municipal authority), which has to initiate the execution of the chosen projects.
Vienna is an interesting case-study, as it is both a State and a municipality under the Austrian Federal Constitution. The recent experimentations with citizens' councils are in line with a trend of participatory instruments being established at the local level (cf. ; ). However, Vienna has not yet formally institutionalized them: Legally, the Vienna Climate Teams operate in a gray area (). From a purely legal point of view, this is unproblematic since the outcomes remain advisory and final decisions on implementation rest with district and municipal authorities, who must adhere to budgetary and procurement laws (). But, once again, the lack of proper legal anchoring leads to problems concerning the acceptance factors: The Vienna Climate Teams have been criticized for being structurally flawed due to the lack of institutional capacities on the district level and insufficient targeted recruitment in the idea generating phase (, 409 et seq). These issues could and should be addressed when further institutionalizing local climate councils. Even within the Austrian constitutional framework, Vienna could profit from referencing both the experiences of other States' Constitutions and specific laws on citizens' councils at the municipal level, such as has been recently introduced for the City of Salzburg (Salzburg LGBl 29/2025).
4 Discussion
Political systems have not yet delivered adequate answers to the climate crisis. The challenge we face is not a purely scientific problem; addressing it requires more than a technocratic approach. Rather, it calls for a transformation of mindsets and, as we tried to show, the transformation of the politico-legal system. Innovations based on deliberative mini-publics are increasingly considered possible solutions to some of the weaknesses of representative democracies and are flourishing almost everywhere in Europe and beyond. These instruments not only improve the civic and social competencies of its participants but also expose limitations of existing legal and constitutional frameworks.
The “if” and “how” of institutionalization matter for the legitimacy and success of citizens' councils and assemblies as well as for the acceptance of the measures developed by them. Institutionalization does not necessarily mean that they are given the power to make legally binding decisions, but rather that these processes are clearly and systematically anchored within the existing framework. This insight is especially useful for climate policy. If institutionalized properly, instruments of participatory democracy can support transformative change. Being democratic instruments, their legal institutionalization falls into the realm of constitutional law. Taking into account the characteristic rigidity of constitutional law might explain the relative lack of explicit constitutional provisions on citizens' councils and assemblies, even though these instruments are employed increasingly.
Drawing on examples from Austria, we address the need for legal anchoring from the perspectives of acceptance and legitimacy. Firstly, our analysis underscores the importance of cross-party acceptance in the success of participatory instruments. The case of the national Climate Assembly reveals that the lack of a solid legal foundation can lead to increased political vulnerability, as the instrument becomes closely associated with specific political actors. One of the experts we interviewed was involved in the Climate Assembly as a civil servant at the time. In his opinion, the lack of cross-party acceptance, which he attributed to the lack of legal anchoring, was the “main faultline”. This situation can undermine the perceived legitimacy of the process and its outcomes, as stakeholders may view the assembly's recommendations as politically motivated rather than as a product of deliberation. To mitigate this risk, it is essential to establish a legal framework that transcends partisan interests and fosters broad political support for participatory processes.
Secondly, democratic innovations such as those described here are sometimes called “participatory soft law” (), but they also show that the legal system can be interpreted in a participatory manner without requiring a constitutional amendment as a first step. The example of Vorarlberg in particular shows that innovations can first be tested for years in a legal gray area before they are institutionalized: Vorarlberg has been holding citizens' councils since 2006 but legally anchored them only in 2013. Vienna also seems open to experimentation at present without immediately changing the city's constitution. Besides, federal states seem to learn from each other and amend their constitutions accordingly as experienced in Salzburg and Carinthia following Vorarlberg's example (at least to some extent). It is proven that climate protection instruments are more readily accepted by the public when other jurisdictions also introduce them. Thus, using Vorarlberg's citizens' council as role model for anchoring in constitutional law offers symbolic as well as practical advantages.
Finally, the results of our ongoing study shall empower policymakers to design and implement more acceptable climate policy measures by focusing on the legal anchoring of participatory instruments. Although the legal framework as such does not guarantee their impact, it certainly does increase the chances and extent to which climate assemblies and councils can contribute to more ambitious policy (cf. : 82). Without a legal basis, citizens' councils and assemblies can become politically vulnerable. A legal framework that is recognized across party lines promotes the stability and acceptance of the processes, and opens a learning process among the citizens, public officials and politicians due to its long-term continuity.
Seen through the broader lens of transforming mindsets for sustainable societies, the findings of this study carry significance well beyond Austria. The circular society paradigm does not emerge from technocratic design alone; it requires a deep shift in how citizens perceive their own agency, their relationship to collective resources, and their responsibility toward future generations. As the Austrian cases demonstrate, citizens' councils and assemblies are not merely instruments of policy consultation but potential sites of civic learning and normative change. Participants emerge from these processes with measurably altered attitudes toward climate measures, a heightened sense of political self-efficacy, and a strengthened commitment to the common good. These are precisely the cognitive and normative transformations that underpin the behavioral change required for sustainable ways of living. A legally anchored architecture of participatory deliberation thus functions as institutional infrastructure for societal mindset change—rendering the shift from abstract aspiration to durable political reality. This connection is of immediate relevance for societies across Europe and beyond that are grappling with the same fundamental challenge: how to build and sustain the popular legitimacy necessary for ambitious, transformative climate policy.
This argument resonates closely with recent circular economy scholarship. ) identify “democratizing socio-ecological cycles” as one of 10 interrelated strategies necessary for a just circularity transition, arguing that direct and deliberative democratic methods—including citizens' assemblies and participatory budgeting—are indispensable complements to technical resource-efficiency measures. Similarly, ) contend that a sustainable circular economy is unattainable without a corresponding “circular society”, in which participatory governance structures legitimize and sustain the redistribution of power, wealth and resources that circularity demands. Read together with our Austrian findings, this literature suggests that the legal anchoring of climate-related citizens' councils and assemblies should not be conceived merely as a climate-specific reform, but as a building block for the broader institutional infrastructure that circular economy governance requires. Without such anchoring, circular economy initiatives—much like the climate assemblies analyzed here—risk being dismissed as symbolic exercises rather than genuine sites of democratic co-determination over resource futures.
The experiences of Ireland, France, Scotland, Germany, and the German-speaking Community of Belgium, all referenced in this paper, illustrate that the Austrian cases are part of a broader transnational turn toward deliberative governance. Yet what Austria's laboratories—above all Vorarlberg—contribute to this international learning process is a uniquely granular account of how constitutional and legal embeddedness translates into increased process acceptance over time. For countries with fragmented party systems, polarized publics, or fragile trust in state institutions, this insight is particularly salient: the question of how to institutionalize participatory instruments so that they acquire legitimacy independently of the political fortunes of any single actor or coalition is a universal governance challenge. Moreover, the circular economy transition, as pursued through European Union frameworks such as the European Green Deal and the Circular Economy Action Plan, will require member states to adopt far-reaching regulatory interventions affecting production, consumption, and land use. The social acceptability of these measures cannot be taken for granted. The evidence assembled in this paper strongly suggests that deliberative mini-publics, when properly anchored in law, can generate the social mandate that technocratic regulation alone cannot. A systematic investment in the legal infrastructure of participatory democracy is therefore not merely an Austrian constitutional reform agenda; it is a transferable model for any democratic society committed to the deep transformation that sustainable and circular futures demand.
This study has several limitations. First, the study is based on a literature review of previous empirical research and interviews with experts rather than on a systematic content analysis of the outcomes of climate assemblies and councils and their impact on political institutions. The aim of this first brief research report is to highlight the connection between acceptance research, legitimacy, and constitutional and legal embeddedness. Last but not least, the main limitation is that our research project has not yet been completed. Therefore, further research is needed concerning reviewing and adapting legal structures to promote democratic innovation. Adopting such a politico-legal approach in the context of transforming mindsets would help to manage expectations and to mitigate unwarranted criticism of ongoing participatory democracy initiatives. Only a legal framework creates clarity in dealing with such instruments and their recommendations in climate policy. This situation calls for a re-evaluation of the legal structures governing participatory processes to ensure that they are adequately supported and recognized within the broader political landscape.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not required for the studies involving humans because we interview experts on non-sensitive issues related to their professional experience and acquire their written consent beforehand. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
TW: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TE: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research is part of the project “Demokratische Innovation im Klimawandel”(StartClim2025.E). StartClim is administered by the Austrian Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency of Austria) and funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Women, Science and Research, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Climate and Environmental Protection, Regions and Water Management, Land Oberösterreich and Klima- und Energiefonds. We also acknowledge the support received from the WU Vienna Library, which provided open access funding for the publication of this paper. Additionally, Tamara Ehs is a member of the COST Action CA21166—Social Sciences and Humanities for Transformation and Climate Resilience (SHiFT).
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1.^In this paper, we will use the mentioned English titles for the participatory processes while providing the original German names here for clarity: nationwide National Climate Assembly (Klimarat), Vorarlberg citizens' council Climate Future (Bürgerrat Klima-Zukunft) and Vienna Climate Teams (Wiener Klimateams) in the City of Vienna.
References
1
AhnB.FriesenederM.KazepovY.BrandlJ. (2023). How context matters: challenges of localizing participatory budgeting for climate change adaptation in Vienna. Urban Plan.8, 399–413. doi: 10.17645/up.v8i1.6067
2
AndreP.BonevaT.ChopraF.FalkA. (2024). Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action. Nat. Clim. Chang.14, 253–259. doi: 10.1038/s41558-024-01925-3
3
AsenbaumH. (2016). Facilitating inclusion: Austrian wisdom councils as democratic innovation between consensus and diversity. J. Public Deliber.12:7. doi: 10.16997/jdd.259
4
BairdJ.PlummerR.HaugC.HuitemaD. (2014). Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change.27, 51–63. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.019
5
BeesonM. (2010). The coming of environmental authoritarianism. Env. Polit.19, 276–294. doi: 10.1080/09644010903576918
6
BlaßnigM. (2025). ““Demokratische Innovationen” - wie offen ist die österreichische Rechtsordnung?,” in Recht innovativ – Das öffentliche Recht im (digitalen) Wandel. Tagung der Österreichischen Assistentinnen und Assistenten, eds. L. B. Berger, D. Emeder, E. Frixeder, M. K. Greifeneder, S. Haberl, B. Hörschläger, et al. (Vienna: Jan Sramek Verlag), 111–132. doi: 10.52018/INKB-00392-B005
7
BoswellJ.DeanR.SmithG. (2023). Integrating citizen deliberation into climate governance: lessons on robust design from six climate assemblies. Public Adm.101, 182–200. doi: 10.1111/padm.12883
8
BoulianneS. (2019). Building faith in democracy: deliberative events, political trust and efficacy. Polit. Stud.67, 4–30. doi: 10.1177/0032321718761466
9
BuaA. (2017). Scale and policy impact in participatory-deliberative democracy: lessons from a multi-level process. Public Adm.95, 160–177. doi: 10.1111/padm.12297
10
BußjägerP. (2014). “Entwicklungen in der direkten Demokratie und Bürgerbeteiligung in Vorarlberg,” in Direkte Demokratie im Diskurs. Beiträge zur Reform der Demokratie, eds. P. Bußjäger, A. Balthasar and N. Sonntag (Vienna: New Academic Press), 151–162.
11
BussuS.FleußD. (2023). “Citizens' assemblies: top-down or bottom-up? – both, please!,” in De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens' Assemblies, eds. M. Reuchamps, J. Vrydagh, and Y. Welp (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter), 141–154. doi: 10.1515/9783110758269-013
12
BuzogányA.EhsT.PlöchlJ.ScherhauferP. (2022). Evaluation Report of the Austrian Climate Citizens' Assembly. Assessment of Input, Process, and Output. Vienna: Institute of Forest, Environmental, and Natural Resource Policy, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU). Available online at: https://boku.ac.at/fileadmin/data/H03000/H73000/H73200/InFER_Discussion_Papers/Final_Report_Austrian_Climate-Citizens-Assembly__BOKU-part.pdf (Accessed March 12, 2026).
13
Calisto FriantM.VermeulenW. J. V.SalomoneR. (2023). Transition to a sustainable circular society: more than just resource efficiency. Circ. Econ. Sustain.4, 23–42. doi: 10.1007/s43615-023-00272-3
14
CaluwaertsD.ReuchampsM. (2016). Generating democratic legitimacy through deliberative innovations: the role of embeddedness and disruptiveness. Representation. 52, 13–27. doi: 10.1080/00344893.2016.1244111
15
ClarC.KonrathC.MeyerM. (2023). “Bürger: innenräte und parlamente in österreich,” in Öffentliches Recht. Jahrbuch 2023, ed. G. Baumgartner (Vienna: Verlag Österreich), 259–283. doi: 10.37942/9783708341651-110
16
ClulowZ. (2019). Democracy, electoral systems and emissions: explaining when and why democratization promotes mitigation. Clim Policy. 19, 244–257. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1497938
17
ColemanE. A.HarringN.JagersS. C. (2023). Policy attributes shape climate policy support. Policy Stud. J. 51, 419–437. doi: 10.1111/psj.12493
18
CuratoN.ParryL. J.RossM. (2025). Citizens' assemblies in fragile and conflict-affected settings. Peace Sustain. 1:100005. doi: 10.1016/j.nerpsj.2025.100005
19
DetschC. (2024). Des Klimas Gretchenfragen: wie sich beim sozial-ökologischen Umbau gesellschaftliche Barrieren überwinden und skeptische Milieus an Bord holen lassen: Länderbericht Deutschland. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Available online at: https://collections.fes.de/publikationen/content/titleinfo/450118 (Accessed March 12, 2026).
20
DevaneyL.BreretonP.TorneyD.ColemanM.BoussalisC.CoanT. (2020). Environmental literacy and deliberative democracy: a content analysis of written submissions to the Irish citizens' assembly on climate change. Clim. Change. 162, 1965–1984. doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02707-4
21
DrexelC. (2013). Neue wege der politischen partizipation. instrument der direkten und partizipativen demokratie in der vorarlberger landesverfassung unter berücksichtigung des neu eingeführten art 1 abs 4. Spektrum Rechtswiss, 165–204.
22
DryzekJ. S. (2011). Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562947.001.0001
23
Duvic-PaoliL. A. (2022). Re-imagining the making of climate law and policy in citizens' assemblies. Transnatl. Environ. Law. 11, 235–261. doi: 10.1017/S2047102521000339
24
EhsT. (2024). Bürgerräte in der klimakrise. die soziale frage am fallbeispiel klima-zukunft-vorarlberg. pnd – Planung neu denken. 1, 223–238.
25
EhsT. (2025). Bürgerräte in der migrationsgesellschaft: ausschluss von der transformationspolitik?SWS Rundschau.1, 27–25.
26
EhsT.PraprotnikK. (2023). The climate assembly as a ‘mini-Austria'. socio-demographics, political interest, and attitudes towards climate change. ConstDelib Working Paper Series. 23, 1–23.
27
EjelövE.NilssonA. (2020). Individual factors influencing acceptability for environmental policies: a review and research agenda. Sustainability. 12:2404. doi: 10.3390/su12062404
28
EscobarO.ElstubS. (2019). “Introduction to the handbook of democratic innovation and governance: the field of democratic innovation,” in Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance, eds. S. Elstub, and O. Escobar (Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing), 1–9. doi: 10.4337/9781786433862.00007
29
European Commission (2020). A New Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. COM(2020) 98 Final. Brussels. Available online at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy_en (Accessed August 19, 2026).
30
FrankenbergG. (2012). “Democracy”, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, eds. M. Rosenfeld and A. Sajó (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 250–268. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199578610.013.0013
31
GamperA. (2015). “Bürgerbeteiligung und demokratische innovation in tirol – voraussetzungen, instrumente, schranken,” in Demokratische Innovation und Partizipation in der Europaregion, eds. P. Bußjäger, and A. Gamper (Vienna: New Academic Press), 23–45.
32
GardbaumS. (2012). “The place of constitutional law in the legal system,” in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, eds. M. Rosenfeld and A. Sajó (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 169–186. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199578610.013.0009
33
GastilJ. (2018). The lessons and limitations of experiments in democratic deliberation. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 14, 271–291. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639
34
GeisselB. (2023). “Linking citizens' assemblies to policymaking: real-life and visionary connections,” in De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens' Assemblies, eds. M. Reuchamps, J. Vrydagh, and Y. Welp (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter), 59–72. doi: 10.1515/9783110758269-007
35
GriesslerE.StackS. (2025). Machen bürgerInnenräte einen unterschied?SWS-Rundschau. 65, 6–26.
36
HempelN.BochR.Jaeger-ErbenM. (2024). “Co-designing a circular society,” in Design for a Sustainable Circular Economy, eds. G. B., Melles and C. Wölfel (Singapore: Springer), 205–232. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-7532-7_11
37
HeyenD. A.WickiM. (2024). Increasing public support for climate policy proposals: a research agenda on governable acceptability factors. Clim. Policy. 24, 785–794. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2024.2330390
38
HobsonK.LynchN. (2016). Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures.82, 15–25. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.012
39
HowarthC.BryantP.CornerA.FankhauserS.GouldsonA.WhitmarshL.et al. (2020). Building a social mandate for climate action: lessons from COVID-19. Environ. Res. Econom. 76, 1107–1115. doi: 10.1007/s10640-020-00446-9
40
Jaeger-ErbenM.JensenC.HofmannF.ZwiersJ. (2021). There is no sustainable circular economy without a circular society. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 168:105476. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105476
41
KallbekkenS. (2023). Research on public support for climate policy instruments must broaden its scope. Nat. Clim. Chang.13, 206–208. doi: 10.1038/s41558-022-01593-1
42
KnoblochK. R.BarthelM. L.GastilJ. (2020). Emanating effects: the impact of the oregon citizens' initiative review on voters' political efficacy. Polit. Stud.68, 426–445. doi: 10.1177/0032321719852254
43
KnopsL.VrydaghJ. (2023). “Between hopes and systemic unsustainability: an analysis of citizens assemblies' potential on climate change,” in De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens' Assemblies, eds. M. Reuchamps, J. Vrydagh, and Y. Welp (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter), 211–226. doi: 10.1515/9783110758269-018
44
KuntzeL.FesenfeldL. P. (2021). Citizen assemblies can enhance political feasibility of ambitious climate policies. SSRN J. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3918532
45
LafontC. (2023). “Which decision-making authority for citizens' assemblies,” in De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens' Assemblies, eds. M. Reuchamps, J. Vrydagh, and Y. Welp (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter), 47–57. doi: 10.1515/9783110758269-006
46
LamnekS. (2005). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz.
47
LewisP.AinscoughJ.CoxcoonR.WillisR. (2023). The messy politics of local climate assemblies. Clim. Change. 167, 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s10584-023-03555-8
48
LindvallD.KarlssonM. (2024). Exploring the democracy-climate nexus: a review of correlations between democracy and climate policy performance. Clim Pol.24, 87–103. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2023.2256697
49
MacqH.JacquetV. (2023). Institutionalising participatory and deliberative procedures: the origins of the first permanent citizens' assembly. Eur. J. Polit. Res.62, 156–173. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12499
50
MaloyJ. S. (2025). Democracy and climate change for realists: an integrated empirical and normative assessment. Polit. Sci. Q.140, 475–494. doi: 10.1093/psquar/qqae118
51
MeuserM.NagelU. (2009). “The expert interview and changes in knowledge production,” in Interviewing Experts, eds. A. Bogner, B. Littig, and W. Menz (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 17–42. doi: 10.1057/9780230244276_2
52
MichelsA.BinnemaH. (2019). Assessing the impact of deliberative democratic initiatives at the local level: a framework for analysis. Adm. Soc. 51, 749–769. doi: 10.1177/0095399718760588
53
MüllerTh. (2013). Verfassungsvergleichung auf ebene der landesgesetzgebung. J. Rechtspolitik.21, 20–30. doi: 10.33196/jrp201301002001
54
MuradovaL.WalkerH.ColliF. (2020). Climate change communication and public engagement in interpersonal deliberative settings: evidence from the Irish citizens' assembly. Clim Policy. 20, 1322–1335. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2020.1777928
55
NiemeyerS. (2013). Democracy and climate change: what can deliberative democracy contribute?Aust. J. Polit. Hist. 59, 429–448. doi: 10.1111/ajph.12025
56
NiessenC.ReuchampsM. (2022). Institutionalising citizen deliberation in parliament: the permanent citizens' dialogue in the German-speaking community of Belgium. Parliam. Aff.75, 135–153. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsaa056
57
OECD (2020). Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. Paris: OECD Publishing.
58
Rigkos-ZitthenI. (2025). Exploring the importance of climate assemblies for politics in the anthropocene. Environ. Plann. F.5, 3–13. doi: 10.1177/26349825251380287
59
RoughJ. (2002). Society's Breakthrough! Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.
60
SmithG. (2024). We Need To Talk About Climate: How Citizens' Assemblies Can Help Us Solve The Climate Crisis. London: University of Westminster Press. doi: 10.16997/book73
61
SmithG.SetäläM. (2018). “Mini-publics and deliberative democracy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, eds. A. Bächtiger, J.S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, and M.D. Warren (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 300–314. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198747369.013.27
62
StaceyJ. (2022). The public law paradoxes of climate emergency declarations. Transnatl. Environ. Law. 11, 291–323. doi: 10.1017/S2047102522000231
63
StraussA. (1998). Grundlagen Qualitativer Sozialforschung. Datenanalyse und Theoriebildung in der Empirischen Soziologischen Forschung. Stuttgart: UTB.
64
van der DoesR.JacquetV. (2023). Small-scale deliberation and mass democracy: a systematic review of the spillover effects of deliberative minipublics. Polit. Stud.71, 218–237. doi: 10.1177/00323217211007278
65
Vorarlberger Landesregierung (2026). Richtlinie der Vorarlberger Landesregierung zur Einberufung und Durchführung eines Bürgerratsprozesses. No 1-0-107-1. Available online at: https://vorarlberg.at/documents/302033/472141/Zahl+1-0-107-1_Richtlinie+B%C3%BCrgerrat+Januar+2026.pdf/3f86de5e-6a35-6327-2952-91c6f582d3d5?t=1769076585388 (Accessed March 12, 2026).
66
VrydaghJ. (2023). “Citizens' assemblies: an introduction,” in De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens' Assemblies, eds. M. Reuchamps, J. Vrydagh, and Y. Welp (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter), 1–20. doi: 10.1515/9783110758269-003
67
WeberT. (2024). Participatory budgeting. verfassungsrechtliche rahmenbedingungen partizipativer budgetgestaltung auf gemeindeebene. Z. Öffentliches Recht. 79, 63–81. doi: 10.33196/zoer202401006301
68
WeberT.ChourabiS. M. (2024). Die wiener klimateams und demokratische innovation aus verfassungsrechtlicher perspektive. Recht Finanzen Gemeinden (RFG). 34, 153–160.
69
WellsR.HowarthC.Brand-CorreaL. I. (2021). Are citizen juries and assemblies on climate change driving democratic climate policymaking? An exploration of two case studies in the UK. Clim. Change.168:5. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-273650/v1
70
WüstenhagenR.WolsinkM.BürerM. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Pol.35, 2683–2691. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001
Summary
Keywords
citizens' assemblies, citizens' councils, climate policy acceptance, constitutional law, democratic innovations, democratic reform, participatory democracy, systemic change
Citation
Weber T and Ehs T (2026) Transforming mindsets through participatory democracy: citizens' councils and assemblies for climate policy acceptance. Front. Sustain. 7:1830246. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2026.1830246
Received
13 March 2026
Revised
19 August 2026
Accepted
21 August 2026
Published
15 September 2026
Volume
7 - 2026
Edited by
Julia Bentz, FCiências.ID, Associação para a Investigação e Desenvolvimento de Ciências, Portugal
Reviewed by
Ioannis Rigkos-Zitthen, Roskilde University, Denmark
Annika Agger, Roskilde University, Denmark
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Weber and Ehs.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Teresa Weber, teresa.weber@tuwien.ac.at
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.