UUniCORN at Almedalen 2025
Mats Målqvist, director of UUniCORN and Emma Gretzer, Executive Director at FORMAS, during the seminar focusing on goal conflict in sustainable societal transitions
The 2025 Almedalen Week has come to an end. UUniCORN hosted three well-attended seminars – thank you to all the panelists who participated, and thank you to everyone who came, listened, and asked questions!
Paneldeltagarna vid seminariet "Barnperspektiv på klimatomställningen - ett alternativt förhållningssätt".
1. A Child-Centered Perspective on the Green Transition – An Alternative Approach
What would it mean to place the child’s perspective at the heart of the green transition? Would we handle the inherent goal conflicts differently? Would our priorities shift? And if so, how can we follow up and ensure that children are truly placed at the center?
These were the questions discussed by the panel: Pernilla Baralt, Secretary General of UNICEF Sweden; Andrea Othelius, WWF Sweden Youth; Robert Andrén, Head of Strategy and Policy at Industrikraft; and Jenny Engström, Innovation Strategist at Vinnova. The moderator was Mats Målqvist, Director of UUniCORN.
Climate change significantly impacts children's health Warmer weather and extreme climate events lead to outcomes such as premature births, increased mortality from malaria, malnutrition and food shortages, and also psychological distress in the form of climate anxiety. There is very little research on how climate change affects children and youth specifically, which raises the question of whose perspectives are considered when tackling the climate crisis.
Mats Målqvist described how children's health issues are often rendered invisible and highlighted the lack of policies that incorporate the perspective of children and youth in the climate discourse.
Pernilla Baralt from UNICEF argued that this is a classic question of power. "Unfortunately, I believe this stems from traditional power structures, which is why it's essential to look at the whole population—and particularly various groups within the child sector. We need to conduct impact analyses focused on children's circumstances." She also suggested that UNICEF could include a child-focused perspective as part of its budgeting process.
Robert Andrén from Industrikraft expressed regret that the energy transition is not being driven with a child-centered perspective—though he believes it should be. He encouraged the younger generation to take the initiative and make their voices heard by engaging directly with corporate decision-makers. "I think those in boardrooms are a bit afraid of children and young people. We should avoid an ‘us versus them’ mindset and instead find shared questions where we can meet."
He urged young people to "knock on the doors" of large companies and make their voices heard: "We need to find door openers—and we need more stakeholders involved to carry this message."
Andrea Othelius from WWF Sweden Youth described the difficulties of trying to "invite yourself" into these conversations. "It's hard to just ‘knock on the door’—I've tried to get in touch. I've called, emailed, knocked, but few have responded. I encourage companies to invite us instead so we can create partnerships, broaden perspectives, and learn from each other."
She shared how her own engagement began: "I had climate anxiety as a child, but when I got involved and started my own political party, that anxiety diminished. Now, I feel hopeful—putting children at the center of the green transition is what gives me hope." But she also emphasized the anger felt by many children and young people: "We really need to bring young voices into the decision-making processes. It brings new perspectives and helps us reach more youth."
Jenny Engström, Innovation Strategist at Vinnova, agreed on the importance of fostering interaction between decision-makers and young people: "Dialogues are exciting, but it’s crucial they don’t become ‘youth-washing’. We must truly open up the dialogue and increase its depth. We need to co-create a vision of the future together." She spoke about an initiative in Uppsala where young people were invited to help design future scenarios and preparedness strategies. "It led to many unconventional ideas from young participants—for example, one proposal was to build ‘houses on wheels’ to prepare for potential flooding."
Jenny concluded with a call to civil society: "Civil society organizations need to join forces with other sectors and help raise the child perspective."
Gustaf Lind, Dag Avango and Andreas Holmberg during the seminar "Goal Conflicts in the Sustainability Transition – Implementation Problem or Existential Threat?"
2. Goal Conflicts in the Sustainability Transition – Implementation Problem or Existential Threat?
"The challenges of the future are largely built on goal conflicts of various kinds. How we relate to and understand them affects how we approach the necessary societal transition toward a regenerative future."
This was the theme of the seminar featuring panelists:
Emma Gretzer, Acting Director General, FORMAS; Gustaf Lind, Secretary General, WWF Sweden; Dag Avango, Professor of History at Luleå University of Technology; and Andreas Holmberg, Bishop of the Diocese of Stockholm, Church of Sweden. The moderator was Mats Målqvist, Professor and Director of UUniCORN.
Mats Målqvist opened the session by briefly outlining goal conflicts in the context of sustainable societal transformation. He described how fundamental needs often come into conflict—whether perceived or existential—and how our way of describing these tensions varies. Are they insoluble dilemmas? Do we approach them from an anthropocentric or biocentric perspective? Do we talk about sustainability or regeneration—and what does our choice of terms say about our perspective?
Gustaf Lind from WWF Sweden began by stressing the need to normalize the existence of goal conflicts:
"Goal conflicts have always existed. They’re often portrayed as difficult and burdensome, but we need to accept them as a normal part of the process—something we simply have to manage. The key is to create structures for how to deal with them. We need to approach them intelligently and resolve them—even if not everyone ends up satisfied. That’s part of democracy."
Andreas Holmberg, Bishop of the Church of Sweden, emphasized the existential dimension:
"Christian belief holds that all of creation has intrinsic value. Since industrialization, we’ve distanced ourselves from nature—we’ve objectified it. But we depend on nature. That sense of reverence for the rest of creation is a driving force for us."
He spoke about the need to shift that mindset and mentioned how the Church of Sweden promotes “spiritual sustainability” during UN climate summits.
"There’s an overreliance on technology to solve everything. I believe we need a shift in values—we need to rethink concepts like happiness. We've been driven by certain values and visions for a long time, and they’ve led us to where we are today—in an existential crisis."
Dag Avango, Professor of History at Luleå University of Technology, said that we can learn a lot by looking back in history at how goal conflicts have been handled—especially during periods of industrialization:
"We draw on historical experiences to understand why and how certain conflicts have emerged and been managed—for example, land use in the 1600s—mining, forestry, and various expansion phases. We work across disciplines and look especially at how goal conflicts have affected minority groups like the Tornedalians and the Sámi. We use history as a resource for case studies on conflict resolution."
Mats Målqvist then turned the conversation toward the future: "Looking ahead—how can we envision the future? If we’re going to navigate these goal conflicts, regardless of our political, existential, or market-based position—what do our visions actually look like?"
Emma Gretzer, Acting Director General at FORMAS, wanted to emphasize hope and belief in the future, and the importance of value-based decisions:
"This provides important input for us at FORMAS—we want to support and amplify these efforts."
"We try to consider all perspectives, but we must also frame them within a systems perspective. What kinds of conflicts are we dealing with? As a government agency, we always need to factor that in when making decisions. How do we prioritize? How do we choose which research to fund? How do we frame our language—and which types of research are being enabled? Who gets to speak—whose voices are present in the room? If we raise awareness around these issues in new ways, we’ll get new research and new answers."
Mats Målqvist responded to Gretzer’s remarks:
"That really sums up what the seminar aimed to highlight—how we ask the question, and from which perspective. It's important to shift between perspectives—sometimes a managerial one, sometimes an existential one."
At the end of the seminar, some audience members shared reflections on the themes:
- What is a real goal conflict and what is a constructed one? Can we develop a framework to better understand the difference?
- We should also be more mindful of the language we use when discussing the climate crisis. We need to talk more about courage and determination—not just hope—because “hope is just a face of fear.” We should say: ‘We shall, we want to, and we will face this crisis.’
Partipants in the seminar "Fair IoT - Connected Systmes and Shifts in Power"
3. Fair IoT – Connected Systems and Shifts in Power
Klas Palm, researcher in civil engineering and industrial technology at Uppsala University, hosted the seminar "Fair IoT – Connected Systems and Shifts in Power."
The panelists were Petter Bertilsson Forsberg, Strategist, IoT Sweden, Tomas Westlund, Senior Strategist, IoT World/RISE, Daniel Dersén, VP Growth, The Swedish Internet Foundation, Lena Miranda, CEO, Linköping Science Park, and Per Nydén, Acting Head of the Innovation Hub, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)
The seminar explored how the Internet of Things (IoT)—connected technological systems—offers new opportunities but also raises concerns around shifts in societal power. The key question was: How can we ensure IoT fosters inclusion, transparency, and equality—rather than the opposite?
The number of connected devices in our daily lives continues to grow. They offer convenience, accessibility, and contribute to sustainability by optimizing energy use. IoT can even promote social equity and improve conditions for various groups in society. But does this make the world more just?Not necessarily. Those who are unable to keep up with digitalization risk becoming a new marginalized group.
The discussion centered around whether a connected society can support democracy. Research shows that the number of democracies in the world is declining, and Klas Palm described a growing “destructiveness” within the tech elite driving digital transformation. He referred to Mark Zuckerberg’s famous motto: “Move fast and break things.”
What are the long-term consequences of this mindset? Could the benefits of connected technology ultimately reinforce exclusion and inequality? And what happens to all the information stored in massive data centers abroad, beyond the reach of national data control and oversight?
Klas Palm emphasized that he is not anti-technology but believes we need greater awareness of how digitalization—and IoT specifically—can lead to power shifts:
“We need a comprehensive approach to the use of technology and the risks it entails.”
The panel discussed the types of innovative solutions needed to counter IoT’s negative effects. A central theme was the importance of public participation in shaping IoT development at a global level.
They stressed the need to ensure that the data we share is not automatically transmitted to large, foreign data centers.
They also encouraged the creation of innovations that develop cognitive, human-centered functions—to build systems that not only serve technology but strengthen society.