SNS Research Brief 116: The Business Sector and Civil Defense: Strengthening the Legal Framework

The business sector plays a central role in maintaining essential services such as energy, transport, food and water supply, electronic communications, pharmaceuticals and healthcare — all indispensable both in civilian crisis management and within the framework of total defense. At the same time, it is unclear what obligations the state can impose on private actors in the work of building up Sweden’s preparedness. 

This is shown by a new SNS Research Brief by Anna Jonsson Cornell, professor of comparative constitutional law at the Faculty of Law at Uppsala University. 

Short summary  

Sweden’s preparedness for peacetime crises, heightened alert and war is largely dependent on the capacity of private companies to maintain production, supply chains and essential services. In peacetime, business participation in preparedness work is primarily based on voluntary agreements and informal coordination. However, in situations of heightened alert or war, far-reaching powers under emergency and total defense legislation are triggered, enabling the state to direct resources and impose obligations on companies. 

The problem arises in the grey zone — the phase in which preparedness actually needs to be built up. Here, the regulatory framework is considerably less well defined and the state has limited legal tools to require companies to undertake concrete preparedness measures. As a result, much of the cooperation between the state and the business sector rests on voluntary agreements and informal coordination. 

The report analyses the national legal framework governing cooperation between the state and private actors in strengthening civil defense, and identifies several structural weaknesses in the current framework. 

Key findings from the report 

• The state lacks clear governance tools in the grey zone between normal peacetime operations and heightened alert, leaving a regulatory gap when preparedness investments and planning measures are most crucial. 

• The division of responsibilities between sectoral authorities, regional civil defense bodies and the government remains unclear, despite several official inquiries. 

• There is uncertainty about how far rule-making powers can and should be delegated to, for example, sectoral authorities on matters relating to the role and responsibilities of private actors in civil defense. This creates uncertainty in the allocation of responsibilities and governance. 

• An unclear legal framework risks generating legal uncertainty and inefficiency, which in turn may weaken incentives for long-term private investment in preparedness and supply preparedness. 

Recommendations 

• Clarify the division of responsibilities between public authorities and private actors in the planning and implementation of preparedness measures. 

• Strengthen the state’s procurement capacity and organization so that public authorities can act as clear and predictable partners in public–private cooperation. 

• Create a more coherent statutory framework for business sector participation in civil defense. 

• Combine contractual solutions and legislation to provide both flexibility and the state’s ability to impose obligations when needed.