Climate justice refers to justice dimensions which are linked to demands to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, support for a just transition to clean energy, climate leadership and promotion of participation (Gardiner, 2011; Schlosberg and Collins, 2014). In the context of climate policy, justice has been connected to demands to mitigate climate change and stay under the 1.5°C global average temperature (Robinson and Shine, 2018) as well as to restore the losses caused by climate actions (e.g., employment) (McCauley and Heffron, 2018). According to a recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report, the damage to livelihoods and biodiversity will increase if this objective is not met (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2018).

Climate change widens the existing social, geographical, economic, and intergenerational inequalities (Schlosberg, 2013; Walker, 2020). Certain communities, such as indigenous groups or rural citizens living in developing countries are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change [Schlosberg, 1999; Holifield, 2001; Martinez-Alier, 2002; Horton, 2006, p. 128]. According to Sanson and Burke (2020) climate justice is also about fighting structural violence as climate change affects those who have contributed less to the problem on a global scale. Intergenerational justice becomes central aspect within climate justice, as younger generations need to live longer with the consequences of climate change—with increasing threat to health, food security, water availability, housing, agriculture, and natural ecosystems which threatens the basic rights of human beings (Albrecht et al., 2020a; Sanson and Burke, 2020).

In this paper, we base our analysis on the concept of procedural justice, which in the context of national climate policy entails opportunities of public in shaping climate policies as well as experiences of public on participation and procedural fairness (e.g., Lind and Tyler, 1988; Klinsky and Dowlatabadi, 2009; Emami et al., 2015). Within the climate policy literature, two aspects of justice are often described: distributive justice related to the possible beneficial or adverse impacts resulting from the implementation or non-implementation of a decision (Young, 1994; Klinsky and Dowlatabadi, 2009), and procedural justice related to how parties perceive their position and engagement in the processes of policymaking (Tyler, 1990; Lawrence et al., 1997; Emami et al., 2015). How citizens and interest groups perceive their positions and engagement has previously been studied, for example, in relation to energy transitions (Williams and Doyon, 2019; Vringer and Carabain, 2020; Devine-Wright et al., 2021), renewable energy projects (Goedkoop and Devine-Wright, 2016) and climate change adaptation within agricultural sector (Popke et al., 2016).

Procedural justice is of crucial importance for the perception of fairness, trust, and public satisfaction (Thibaut et al., 1974; Tyler, 1990; Lawrence et al., 1997; Goedkoop and Devine-Wright, 2016). It consists of e.g., recognition, participation and transparency in environmental planning, decision-making, and governance (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Schlosberg, 1999; Fraser, 2001; Schrader-Frechette, 2005; Paavola, 2008). Recognition, though it could be considered as its own pillar of justice alongside procedural and distributive justice, does not directly include participation (Fraser, 2001; Honneth, 2004). It is about acknowledging the existence of group of stakeholders or citizens e.g., one can be Finnish resident but not Finnish citizen, whereby citizenship is required to vote in parliament elections. All EU (European Union) citizens should be treated equally, and they can vote in EU and municipal elections. Voting rights start at the age of 18 and therefore young people are often treated as citizens to be.

Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development states that environmental issues should include the participation of all concerned citizens and that participation should be facilitated by states to encourage public awareness (United Nations., 1992). After the Rio Declaration, it has been widely emphasized that more effort should be diverted to the engagement and participation of citizens in the processes of solving burning societal problems, such as climate change (Bunders et al., 2010; Reed and Abernethy, 2018). Participation can take many forms, from simply hearing affected parties to giving them power in decision-making (Paavola, 2005). Participation also requires recognition, which implies respect and being valued (Fraser, 2001; Paavola, 2005; Williams and Doyon, 2019). Finland has been active in developing consultation procedures through guidelines for public hearings (Finnish Council of State., 2016). In the Finnish legislative tradition, this process perspective is addressed through transparent legislative procedures and participatory consultation procedures in which interest groups and citizens are heard (Tala 2005, p. 132; Airaksinen and Albrecht, 2019). For example, legislative drafting includes ex ante policy appraisal during which impacts to different societal groups are assessed (Tala, 2005)—then, identifying and addressing all relevant societal groups is crucial for procedural justice. In this regard, citizen participation in broader terms, as stated in the objectives of the Finnish Climate Change Act, is unusual in Finnish hearing procedures, and therefore this procedure can be interpreted as formal way to acknowledge participants. According to the Finnish constitution (paragraph 20), the right to participate in decision making concerning the environment is to be safeguarded by the authorities.

In addition, the transparency and openness of legislative drafting improve the assessment of the impact of public consultation on legislative proposals (Keinänen and Kemiläinen, 2016; Meriläinen et al., 2020). Transparency is a concept that highlights access to information and the principle of legal certainty, which aims to safeguard the transparency and openness of the processes of legislative drafting, e.g., transparency requirements of the Paris Agreement aim at more ambitious national climate policies (Weikmans et al., 2020). In international climate negotiations, transparency toward the member states and the international community has been highlighted. Transparency in public consultations is also the main objective of the guidelines for legislative drafting and is emphasized in the guidelines from the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) for better regulation (OECD., 2010; Finnish Council of State., 2016). Interest groups have a significant role in Scandinavian legislative politics, which has also been characterized as corporatism (Teräväinen-Litardo, 2015; Vesa et al., 2018). This can cause challenges to the transparency objectives. In our paper, participation through public consultations is expected to contribute to the procedural quality of legislative drafting through perceived transparency and fairness.

Next, we describe the materials and methods and then turn to the analysis results.

The research data consisted of 2,458 responses to the survey on citizen perceptions of the Finnish Climate Change Act amendment. The Ministry of the Environment of Finland opened a survey utilizing the Webropol web survey platform, which was open from 2nd of November 2019 to 9th of December 2019. The survey launched the consultation process, which precedes the law drafting. The survey was targeted to the public, and it was accessible through the webpage of the Ministry of the Environment and social media in 6 different languages: Finnish, Swedish, English and three Sami languages. Anyone interested in Finnish Climate Change Act amendment could participate in the survey. Accessibility of participation was addressed using e-consultation methods in the form of an online survey, which can improve opportunities for participation for different social groups from various geographic locations (Albrecht et al., 2021). Open web surveys attract participants who take part in climate action and are concerned about climate change or are opposing climate policy in a form of climate denial, which is why a survey might construct the public in limited ways (Capstick et al., 2015). The part of society that holds a neutral opinion toward climate policy, and represents most voters, could remain underrepresented in such a survey.

The survey was comprised of 19 questions with yes, no, and I do not know options with open-ended questions, which could then be further expanded upon in an open form (see Appendix 1 for translated survey). Additionally, the survey included themes of transparency and opportunities for participation, public acceptance, scope of application, and legal measures. The survey design was piloted in cooperation with the research project All-Youth, which also received a permission for the further analysis of this data from the Ministry of Environment, Finland.

We conducted a mixed-method analysis, which can combine quantitative and qualitative analytical elements and therefore aims to gain a deeper understanding and add validity of the findings (e.g., Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela, 2006; Creswell et al., 2011; McKim, 2015). Our analysis consisted of simplistic statistics and thematic analysis (e.g., Boyatzis, 1998; Guest et al., 2011) to reveal differences in the public perceptions toward participation, transparency, and acceptance of the Finnish Climate Change Act. The analysis was conducted through qualitative coding with the software Atlas.ti 8, because of the considerable number of responses to the open-ended questions that were used to give the respondents the opportunity to reflect on climate policy issues. Atlas.ti software can be used to create keywords that are linked to quotations, which can then be grouped and sorted (Friese, 2019). We created qualitative codes based on the variety of answer options to the open-ended questions. Our qualitative coding resulted in 1778 hits on 336 qualitative codes of which we only selected verified quotations with a qualitative code that had occurred at least 10 times. These were 178 qualitative codes in total, and based on them, the answers to the open-ended questions were sorted into five groups according to urgency of climate action from those calling for climate urgency to those denying climate change (Albrecht et al., 2020b). These codes were grouped under themes of transparency, participation, acceptance, and objectives of the Climate Change Act amendment e.g., carbon neutrality by 2035.

When asked, “can you participate sufficiently in the climate policy,” 37% of the respondents replied that they could participate sufficiently, and 44% of the respondents could not participate sufficiently in the climate policy. In the survey results, it is noteworthy that those respondents who highlighted the need for greater climate change action often stated that they could participate in the legislative process through their professional activity: “I can participate through my own activity and work and of course through voting.” The members of this group of respondents were more likely to be responding to the questionnaire as an expert, which demonstrates that climate expertise is gaining momentum in addition to strong forest and agriculture advocacy, which is characteristic of the Finnish policy style.

The survey results showed that the implementation of participatory rights for a wide audience as included in the Finnish Climate Change Act from 2015 has been challenging. The “I don't feel like I'm being heard” type of responses demonstrate that despite the formal consultation procedure, creating a feeling of being heard requires more participatory methods and integration of the results of the consultation into the legislative proposal. The respondents stressing the urgency of climate action (systemic change, now) emphasized citizen action through the choices of NGOs and consumers. This can widen the gap between the climate movement and policy makers, as these forms of participation are beyond the scope of legislative drafting, which relies on formal hearing procedures of the public and interest groups. Those respondents who called for more climate action also called for more youth participation. In particular, the young respondents emphasized that despite the hearings, there was not enough climate action: “I feel that the concerns of citizens, especially young people that worry about climate change, are not taken seriously and actions that aim to mitigate climate change are not done fast enough.”

The respondents emphasizing parliamentary democracy as a form of citizen participation were most likely to mention elections and referendums, surveys, and e-deliberation to improve the participatory condition. Novel approaches that supplement the democratic institutions, such as online surveys, e-deliberation and mini-publics have also been referred to as democratic innovations (Jäske and Setälä, 2019). Climate skeptics also lamented participation and discussion culture. They stated that only one kind of opinion was accepted as a basis for participation and declared that the public discussion was narrow while applying quasi-scientific argumentation.

When asked, “whose participatory possibilities should particularly be improved,” out of 1,552 responses, 1,297 were classified to 10 groups (Figure 1). Children, young people, and young adults were mentioned 453 times in the open field. Researchers and experts were mentioned 220 times. Citizens (137), everyone (125) and agriculture and forestry stakeholders (117) were also mentioned over 100 times. Citizens with small income (31), industry representatives (30), industry representatives (30), nobody (15) and consumers (14) were mentioned over 10 times. Other 255 responses were mentioned <10 times or remained unclassified, part of that since they were populist statements against green and left politics or climate sciences.

In the survey, participants were asked: “Is Finnish climate policy transparent enough?” 54% of the respondents stated that Finnish climate policy was not transparent enough. Some respondents described Finnish climate policy as “cabinet politics,” where the lobby groups command control. Additionally, the respondents emphasizing citizen participation stated that the citizens should be better informed about climate policy: “There is not enough information available in my opinion.” In the citizen survey, the demand for more information, in a comprehensible format, was expressed many times, as it would also improve the acceptance of climate policy. The climate change deniers were also concerned about the lack of information; however, they stated that alternative facts were not considered. The media plays a key role in shaping public perception and policy agendas, which is why media reports on climate change matter (Andersson, 2009).

The respondents stating that climate policy was sufficiently transparent belonged to the “Finland as a pioneer country” group. They reasoned that there is enough media debate and visibility on climate issues: “Climate policy is widely discussed in media, and it is easy to find more information online.” These respondents were more informed about climate policy because of their expertise.

When asked: “How should the government ensure the public acceptance for the Finnish climate policy objectives and measures for climate change mitigation?” most reactions stated that public acceptance could be increased through sufficient and understandable information, openness and transparency, and additional opportunities for participation. These are elements of procedural justice that contribute to the quality of ex-ante policy appraisal. Within 1,822 answers to the open question, we summarized 1,340 reactions into 19 categories that were mentioned at least 10 times (Figure 2).

The respondents emphasized that it is not sufficient to simply hear the public; public opinion should also impact decision making: “Interest groups and citizens should be heard, and the ideas derived from these consultations should be fully considered.” Respondents emphasized that access to information can increase the acceptance of climate policy, the information should be easy to access and to comprehend. The role of experts and expertise was highlighted, especially in the “Finland as a pioneer country” group of respondents. Here especially the role of the Finnish Climate Panel, which is a scientific advisory organization that aims to bring scientific knowledge into decision making, was highlighted.

In addition, increasing the ambition of climate policy would bring more acceptance, according to those respondents that support the 2035 climate neutrality objective (“systemic change, now” group). More effective and concrete climate policy could be achieved e.g., with carbon taxation, meet taxation and other policies that reduce emission and motivate people to make choices e.g., for vegetarian food. The survey results reveal that those who highlighted citizen participation were more likely to state that public acceptance could be improved and maintained by addressing social justice and equality: “The citizens accept if the issues are reasoned to them and at the same time society and equality are safeguarded.” As the Finnish Climate Change Act is amended to bring its objectives in line with the targets of the Paris Agreement, more of the burden of climate mitigation will be transferred to various parts of society according to the NDCs (nationally determined contributions) (Weikmans et al., 2020).

We noted that respondents tended to favor their own perspective when asserting measures that would be influential in obtaining further public acceptance of climate change policy. For instance, respondents who highlighted citizen participation argued for participatory rights, citizen polls and referendums, and respondents who emphasized economic competitiveness stated that economic incentives would help gain public acceptance. The latter actors stressed the importance of the landowners' right to decide on the use of their property. This was highlighted in the survey results when participants were asked “should the regulatory measures for carbon emissions and sinks be included in the Climate Change Act?” and whether “the sector-specific emission reduction targets should be included in the Climate Change Act.”

In the survey, respondents were asked whether the 2035 objective should be included in the legislation and whether other objectives and means for carbon emission reduction should be included in the Climate Change Act, such as measures to regulate the emissions and sinks from land use, land use changed and forestry, total amount of emissions, carbon budgets to each sector or climate compensations. The results of the respondents' perceptions of these proposed measures are summarized in Table 2.

Fifty-five percent of the respondents were in favor of the targets of carbon neutrality by 2035 and carbon negativity by 2050. These targets were particularly supported by the “systemic change, now” and “Finland as a pioneer country.” The inclusion of a paragraph on carbon emissions and sinks in the Finnish Climate Change Act gained the most support from the public (63%). The respondents supporting this (from the systemic change, now and citizen participation groups) stated that this paragraph should be formulated to adhere to the objectives of the EU LULUCF regulation. In the “economic competitiveness group,” forest and landowners” interests were represented: “I would like to stress the interests of economic forestry.” In the systemic change now, Finland as a pioneer country and citizen participation groups the importance of forest conservation and old growth forests were stressed.

The inclusion of a paragraph on climate compensation gained the least support (35%), as most respondents (48%) stated that it was not an efficient measure for carbon emission reductions and would lead to increased inequality. Members of the “Finland as a pioneer country” group were most likely to be in favor of this aim. Climate compensation takes the idea of distributional justice to the next, more global level, as most of the climate compensation projects are in the Global South. However, regulating climate compensation would ensure that they are providing carbon reduction as promised.