AI jobs in Denmark have become a central question for companies, workers and policymakers, as more Danish businesses use artificial intelligence to automate tasks while researchers warn that the technology’s wider impact on employment remains difficult to measure. The debate intensified after Danish entrepreneur Martin Thorborg said that future generations may look back on today’s 37-hour working week as “a kind of slave society”, even as labour-market experts caution against assuming that AI is already replacing jobs on a broad scale.
Danish companies are using AI before the labour market has clear answers
Artificial intelligence is spreading quickly across Danish workplaces. According to Statistics Denmark, 75 percent of companies with more than 250 employees used at least one AI-based technology in 2025, while the share was 37 percent among companies with 10 to 49 employees. Eurostat also ranked Denmark as the EU country with the highest share of companies using AI technologies in 2025, ahead of Finland and Sweden.
That level of adoption has made Denmark one of Europe’s most advanced test cases for how generative AI may reshape work. The country combines a highly digitalised economy, strong public services and a labour market built around high employment and collective bargaining. This means that AI is not entering an economy with weak institutions, but one where changes in work organisation are likely to become a political and social issue.
Thorborg’s company, the accounting platform Dinero, offers one of the clearest examples of how AI is already affecting staffing decisions. He told TV 2 that the company would probably have had around 40 more employees if it had not used AI. At Dinero, artificial intelligence now handles 72 percent of customer support, and the company has chosen not to refill 30 support positions.
The same logic is also changing software development. Thorborg said some developers at the company have not used a keyboard for months and instead interact with computers through speech, while AI models take over larger parts of the coding process. The example suggests that the first impact of AI may not always be formal layoffs, but a slower shift in hiring, replacement and task allocation.
AI-related job cuts are becoming visible, but the evidence is still mixed
Several large companies have recently linked restructuring to greater investment in artificial intelligence. Nordea announced in March 2026 that around 1,500 employees across the group are expected to be affected in 2026 and 2027 as part of a restructuring linked to its 2030 strategy, technology, data and AI. The bank said the changes involve shifts in workforce composition and a reduction in the number of employees, while also promising support through reskilling and internal opportunities.
Internationally, major technology companies have also announced large workforce reductions while increasing AI investment. The debate has therefore moved beyond speculation. For workers in administration, finance, customer support, communication and some technical roles, AI is no longer only a productivity tool. It is becoming part of decisions about headcount and future recruitment.
Still, researchers interviewed by TV 2 stressed that Denmark has not yet seen robust evidence of a broad employment collapse caused by AI. Jakob Rubæk Holm, professor at Aalborg University Business School, said there is not yet a solid data basis showing that jobs have started to disappear in sectors where AI has entered. His interpretation is that AI is often creating or changing tasks rather than simply performing work that humans previously did.
Mark Friis Hau, an assistant professor at Roskilde University who researches artificial intelligence, described AI as one of the fastest-growing technologies in history. But he also noted that, at the macroeconomic level, its effects are still hard to identify. Researchers cannot yet clearly see whether AI has lifted productivity in Denmark or how much it has changed total employment.
Knowledge workers face the first wave of AI disruption
The areas most exposed to AI are not necessarily the same ones affected by earlier waves of automation. Industrial robots mainly changed manufacturing and logistics. Generative AI reaches deeper into knowledge work, including administration, legal and economic analysis, communication, graphic design and parts of software development.
Friis Hau pointed to occupational groups such as clerical workers, academically trained employees and professionals in administrative or design-related roles as more likely to be affected. In Denmark, that includes groups often associated with unions such as HK, AC and Djøf, which represent office workers, academics and professionals in law, economics and public administration.
This is why the Danish debate is politically sensitive. AI does not only concern low-paid or routine manual work. It may also affect middle-class employees with higher education, stable contracts and roles that were previously considered protected from automation.
The International Monetary Fund has estimated that most Danish workers could benefit from AI adoption, but around one fifth of the workforce may face displacement risks. Its analysis identified private-sector employees, women and tertiary-educated workers as more exposed than others. The Danish case therefore points to a more complex future than a simple division between “safe” and “unsafe” jobs.
Denmark’s 37-hour week is now part of the AI debate
Thorborg’s most striking argument is not only about layoffs. It is about the meaning of work itself. He told TV 2 that he hopes society will eventually share the remaining work more evenly and reduce working time. In his view, people may one day look back on today’s standard full-time working week in the same way many now look back on factory workers who worked 50 hours a week.
The comparison is deliberately provocative. Denmark is not a slave society in any legal or historical sense. But the comment reflects a broader question: if AI makes many tasks faster and cheaper, should the gains be used mainly to increase profits and reduce staff, or should they also reduce working hours and improve quality of life?
This question is especially relevant in the Nordic context, where productivity, welfare and negotiated labour-market change have historically been linked. Denmark’s model has often relied on adapting to economic change through skills, unions, employers and active labour-market policies. AI may test whether that model can still distribute the benefits of technological progress.
The next phase will depend on reskilling and political choices
For now, the safest conclusion is that AI in Denmark is transforming jobs faster than it is eliminating them at scale. Some companies are already reducing hiring needs or cutting roles. Others are using AI to create new tasks, improve productivity or reorganise work. The long-term outcome will depend on whether workers are trained to use the technology and whether institutions can manage the transition.
Holm’s advice to workers was to remain curious, share knowledge with colleagues and avoid resisting the technology altogether. That reflects a practical reality: in many sectors, the question is no longer whether AI will enter the workplace, but how it will be used and who will control the gains.
The Danish debate is therefore likely to become part of a wider European discussion on working time, productivity, social protection and the role of AI in the economy. If the technology delivers large efficiency gains, Denmark and other Nordic countries may face a political choice: accept a labour market shaped mainly by corporate restructuring, or use AI as an opportunity to rethink how work is shared.
