8. Conclusion After reviewing Copenhagen’s various policies, one big question The implication would be that aspects that are not completely arises: How does Copenhagen’s administration define the aligned with emissions reduction are not considered as concept of “smart city”? Throughout this chapter, we have necessary or essential. However, this is not the case. Rather, seen that Denmark’s capital is efficient in terms of energy and what is really missing is centralized communication about the climate solutions. Renewable energy and mobility aspects are overall profile of the city. This raises a couple of question marks strongly contributing to the city’s objective to become carbon about dimensions that, as our other chapters show, other cities neutral by 2025. view as important—for example, social inclusion and citizens’ participation, or the role of data platforms for launching However, compared to other smart cities such as Amsterdam innovations, startups, and new services. (Chapter 2) or Singapore (Chapter 5), Copenhagen lacks the typical smart city platform that centralizes up-to-date However, we strongly acknowledge that the green growth information. An illustration of this point is the fact that most program defined by Copenhagen to stimulate sustainable of the information we collected on Copenhagen is from 2015. economic development is unique around the world. It represents a vital tool for Greater Copenhagen as a whole to The earliest full official smart city programs developed by reach its neutrality goals and illustrate, therefore, how a critical the City Council were published in 2018-2020, even if the aspect of the city’s development is the fight against climate first programs and plans were established in 2008-2009. change. Assessments of what has been done since 2013 or 2015 are partially provided. Moreover, all digital development, such All items are fundamental aspects of programs defined by as the open-data platform, has been shut down, and no real cities’ officials, but city councils’ communication policies and update has been posted on the city’s official websites to clearly national democratic legacies can differ across cities. explain why. Therefore, the city presents innovation through the lens of renewable energy, which is strongly correlated with its objectives on carbon neutrality. The lack of formal information on governance and citizen participation makes us wonder what the city’s approach is regarding the development of its status as a smart city: Does Danish democratic life not require any focus and formal communication on citizens’ participation? Was the concept of “smart city” used as a marketing tool to make the city more attractive back in 2014? Is the city only using the smart city concept to ensure its carbon neutrality, thus highlighting that being smart requires being sustainable? In fact, focusing on neutrality gives Copenhagen a specific profile, considering Denmark’s advanced digital development. Based on the above section on governance, and on the different documents and interviews that we consulted, it seems that the City Council officials have contradictory ideas. In a way, residents do not know about smart city development in Copenhagen but are still involved in the process. Our intuition here makes us think that, ultimately, the smart city concept in Copenhagen is only used as a tool. It aims to make the city more attractive to investors, students, startups, and businesses at the European and International levels. However, it only seems to be used to make the city carbon neutral. 136 Quélin and Smadja | HEC PARIS | SMART CITIES | The sustainable program of six leading cities | 2021