Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Finland
Table of contents
The Government Resolution on the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and Action Plan 2025-2027 was adopted on 12 June 2025 and establishes a new set of strategic objectives. Moreover, the Action Plan for Tackling the Grey Economy and Economic Crime 2024–2027, was adopted by Government resolution in December 2024 and it contains several objectives aimed at combatting tax and customs fraud.
In terms of institutions, the Ministry of Justice oversees the planning and coordination of anti-corruption activities. The preparation and steering group appointed by the Ministry of Justice guides and coordinates the implementation of the Strategy and the associated Action Plan. It reports on the progress of the measures to the Ministerial Working Group on Internal Security and Strengthening the Rule of Law.
The country has an independent body for overseeing political finance and the lobbying register (National Audit Office of Finland) and a central government unit for open data policy (Ministry of Finance). However, there is no central government function for public information issues.
Note: 2025 and 2020 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Data on where Finland’s integrity system is strongest and could be most improved can be found at the link below:
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Finland fulfils 60% of criteria on the strength of strategic framework, and 53% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 38% and 32%, respectively.
The Government Resolution on the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and Action Plan 2025-2027 establishes strategic objectives to mitigate public integrity risks in key areas as public financial management, internal control and risk management, public procurement, the private sector, public corporations, state-owned enterprises, and public-private partnerships, as well as to reduce fraud and other forms of corruption across the public sector. While the Action Plan for Tackling the Grey Economy and Economic Crime 2024–2027 includes outcome-level indicators for each objective, the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and Action Plan 2025–2027 does not contain outcome level indicators. Lead organisations for the objectives are identified in the action plan. In terms of inclusiveness and transparency of intergovernmental and public consultations, the strategy underwent inter-governmental consultation although there are no mandatory procedures for it.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Finland fulfils 40% of criteria on lobbying regulations, and 89% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 43% and 38%, respectively.
Finland adopted the Transparency Register Act in 2023, with the law entering into force on 1 January 2024. The Act defines lobbying activities and lobbyists and empowers the National Audit Office to impose conditional fines to compel reporting. However, it does not establish a range of sanctions for specific breaches. In practice, the National Audit Office is also the supervisory function in central government responsible for overseeing lobbying. A lobbying register - the Transparency Register - is available online and it includes information on names of individual lobbyists, specific legislation or regulations targeted by lobbying, and organisations’ budgets and expenses for lobbying.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Finland fulfils 78% of criteria on lobbying regulations, and 33% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 80% and 45%, respectively.
The framework defines circumstances and relationships that can lead to conflict-of-interest situations for public officials as well as institutional responsibilities. Any member of Government or Parliament is required to submit an interest declaration, as are judges, public officials in a high-risk position and top-tier civil servants. However, there is no specific process for verifying the content of interest declarations. Additionally, there is no data available on the rate of verification of declarations. Individual authorities are responsible for ensuring that public officials adhere to the requirements.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Finland fulfils 80% of criteria on political finance regulations, and 100% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 58%, respectively.
The country’s framework includes personal liability for electoral candidates, proportionate sanctions for breaches of established rules, and bans on contributions from foreign states and enterprises as well as publicly owned enterprises. Comprehensive reporting requirements and mandatory public disclosure of party finances are in place. Additionally, the National Audit Office has the mandate to oversee the financing of political parties and election campaigns. It discloses information regarding breaches and investigations and has certified auditors on its payroll. All political parties have submitted annual accounts within the timelines defined by national legislation and their financial accounts are publicly available on a single online platform. However, while Finland’s regulations prohibit political parties from accepting donations whose donor cannot be determined, the prohibition does not apply to aid received from ordinary fundraising. Therefore, anonymous donations are not completely banned.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Finland fulfils 78% on public information regulations, and 58% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 72% of criteria and 62%, respectively.
Finland has a comprehensive access to information law – the Act on the Openness of Government Activities – although it allows fees to be charged for retrieving, reproducing, or mailing information. Regulations establish that Finland’s Government data are “open by default”. While many key datasets related to integrity are published online, ministers’ agendas and salaries of individual senior civil servants are not publicly available on a central government website, and there is no aggregated data available on requests for access to information. In practice, while the Public Information Management Board has the monitoring function for open data policy at the level of central government and a mandate to assess and promote the provisions in the Information Management Act, there is no dedicated supervisory body responsible for overseeing the procedure of requesting access to public information.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Finland fulfils 59% of criteria on judicial integrity regulations, and 52% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 45%, respectively.
The Constitution of Finland and the Courts Act ensure judges’ secure tenure until mandatory retirement age, expiry of their term of office, or lawful dismissal based on objective grounds such as resignation, loss of capacity due to illness or disability.
The procedures for the selection, appointment, and promotion of judges are governed by the Constitution of Finland and the Courts Act. While the selection process may include consultations and hearings of applicants, structured interviews or examinations are not mandatory. For all judicial positions except those in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, appointments are based on proposals by the Judicial Appointments Board, which evaluates candidates’ qualifications and suitability. Appointments to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court are initiated by the respective courts, with the Judicial Appointments Board providing opinions only when requested. Candidates have the right to appeal decisions concerning appointment or promotion under the procedures set out in the Courts Act.
Integrity and conflict-of-interest provisions are established in the Code of Judicial Procedure and the Administrative Procedure Act, which specify circumstances that may affect judicial impartiality. However, not all members of the Judicial Appointments Board are required to submit declarations of interest. While the judge members must do so, the non-judge members of the Board are exempt from this obligation. Mechanisms for reporting misconduct are provided under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Act on Whistleblower Protection No. 1171/2022. This legislation establishes internal reporting channels across the judiciary.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Finland fulfils 69% of criteria on prosecutorial integrity regulations, and 63% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 52%, respectively.
In Finland, prosecutors operate under the Act on the National Prosecution Authority (32/2019), which defines the circumstances and relationships that may give rise to conflicts of interest and sets out the conditions under which prosecutors must be recused, among others. The Act specifies that prosecutors are disqualified from handling a case if they have a close personal, professional, or financial relationship with any party involved. Sanctions for breaching conflict-of-interest provisions are outlined in the Criminal Code and the Act on Public Officials in Central Government, which also define the objective grounds for dismissal of prosecutors, including permanent incapacity due to illness, defect, or injury, or serious violation or neglect of official duties.
However, neither the Act on the National Prosecution Authority nor the Act on Public Officials in Central Government establish merit-based procedures (e.g. written examinations or panel interviews) for the appointment and promotion of prosecutors. The Finnish legal framework grants candidates the right to appeal decisions concerning their selection, appointment, or promotion. Furthermore, the regulatory framework does not require prosecutors to submit general interest or asset declarations.
The Act on Whistleblower Protection No. 1171/2022, requires the establishment of internal reporting channels within public prosecutors’ offices, accessible to both current and former employees, and prohibits retaliation against any individual who files a report. While a whistleblowing portal exists, it is not publicly accessible; however, whistleblower cases are handled by the same staff members until completion. Staff handling such reports in prosecutors’ offices are not required to undergo mandatory training on confidentiality.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Finland fulfils 67% of criteria on disciplinary system regulations, and 33% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 22%, respectively.
The Act on Public Officials in Central Government, the Government Decree on Public Officials in Central Government, and the Criminal Code define the disciplinary procedures applicable to civil servants. A disciplinary offence is defined as any violation of official duties, and the legislation establishes a range of sanctions corresponding to the seriousness of each offence. However, the Finnish legal framework does not provide for a statute of limitations for disciplinary actions.
Under the Act on Public Officials in Central Government, civil servants generally have the right to appeal administrative decisions concerning them to an administrative court, with further appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. While in a case of suspected criminal offence, a request for investigation is made to the criminal investigation authority, this process is not required by law: the Act, does not include provisions requiring officials responsible for investigating or deciding disciplinary cases to report suspected criminal conduct to the judiciary or law enforcement authorities.
Finland lacks a formal training programme on disciplinary investigation procedures, and staff responsible for handling disciplinary cases do not receive specialised training in disciplinary law or investigative methods.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.