Fact check: Hvilke firmaer har i Danmark størst indflydelse på udformningen af regler for certificeringsordningen for certificerede statikere i bygningsreglementet?

1. Who claims the loudest voice — big consultancies staking a claim

The analyses identify NIRAS and Rambøll as prominent private firms tied to the certification ecosystem: NIRAS is reported to employ 17 certified statikere, representing over 8% of Denmark’s certified structural engineers ^[1], while Rambøll runs its own certification track and stresses nationwide capacity to support oral presentations in the process ^[2]. These facts indicate operational influence: both firms supply sizable shares of certified professionals and host certification procedures that make them important stakeholders in implementation. The presence of formal certification offerings from these consultancies gives them leverage in practical rule-shaping even if the provided data does not show direct legislative authorship or formal regulatory drafting roles.

2. The certification gatekeeper — Dancert’s coordinating role

One source brands Dancert as Denmark’s leading certification body for the Statikerordningen and states that its scheme was framed in collaboration with “four of the country’s largest advisory firms” ^[3]. This positions Dancert as an institutional actor creating standards and administering approvals, giving it structural influence distinct from single firms: Dancert writes and enforces assessment criteria, which translates into de facto regulatory power over who gains the credential. The collaboration with major consultancies also suggests an industry-aligned standard-setting process, though the analyses do not name the four firms or document public consultation records, leaving open questions about breadth of stakeholder input and transparency.

3. Industry associations pushing system change — FRI and DI Byggeri

Trade bodies appear to be advocating policy change. FRI proposed a company-based certification scheme and flagged shortages of certified engineers at higher classes ^[4]. DI Byggeri has publicly argued the certification needs review and prefers a model certifying firms rather than individual liability-bearers, linking that reform to faster case processing ^[5]. These positions indicate a consistent industry agenda favoring institutional responsibility and administrative efficiency, reflecting employers’ interests in shifting liability and streamlining project approvals. The sources document these proposals during 2023–2025, showing momentum toward debating the architecture of certification, but they do not confirm adoption of these proposals into law.

4. The government presence — Social- og Boligstyrelsen’s technical steering

The analyses reference new or updated BR18 guidance issued by Social- og Boligstyrelsen, suggesting the ministry-level apparatus is updating technical guidance that intersects with certification ^{[4] [6]}. This places the agency as the formal regulatory authority whose guidance frames compliance expectations. The interplay shown in the materials implies a two-tier dynamic: industry actors (firms, Dancert, associations) shape practice and proposals, while Social- og Boligstyrelsen supplies the official legal and technical framework that ultimately anchors the rules. The provided items do not, however, include legislative texts or meeting minutes that would prove which external actors directly influenced statutory wording.

5. Contrasting agendas and what’s missing from the record

Across the documents, two competing models appear: person-based certification (status quo defended by some) versus company-based certification (pushed by FRI and DI Byggeri) ^{[4] [5]}. Major consultancies and a leading certifier favor operational continuity and control over assessment processes ^{[1] [2] [3]}, while trade bodies emphasize systemic efficiency and shifted liability. The current materials lack quantitative lobbying records, legislative drafting citations, or minutes of advisory committees that would prove direct influence on statutory text, so influence must be inferred from participation in certification delivery and public advocacy rather than documented rule-making authority.

6. How to close the evidentiary gap — documents to consult next

To move from informed inference to documented attribution, the next steps are to obtain: official consultation responses to BEK nr. 1693, minutes from advisory committees to Social- og Boligstyrelsen, Dancert’s governance and stakeholder lists, and public submissions from FRI and DI Byggeri dated 2023–2025. The current set shows who shaped practice and public debate—NIRAS, Rambøll, Dancert, FRI, DI Byggeri and Social- og Boligstyrelsen ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}—but does not legally attribute textual authorship of the certification rules, leaving room for follow-up using formal regulatory records.