I wrote a piece about it with 8 concrete suggestions:
Copy pasting it here as well:
As someone who spends most of my day on LinkedIn due to the nature of my job, I see a lot of posts and comments on how to boost economic growth and innovation in Finland, and in Europe overall. I have seen a lot of infographics comparing the sizes of unicorns from each country and how the AI boom will accelerate the future. I am not an expert on any of these topics.
However, I have spent my professional life helping companies grow, so I thought I would share my point of view. I do not know if this post will get any reach, but at least it can serve as a watermark I can look back on to see whether any of these suggestions made sense or gained support.
Most of my career has been in Finland, the country I love and call home. Like many others, Finland is figuring out how to grow again and adapt to the velocity and realities of the new world. A lot of great things have happened here. The startup ecosystem built over the last 10 years has grown remarkably. As someone who has been part of it, I see many right steps, and truly admire people who innovate and drive change here.
It’s very possible to grow a strong 50–100 person tech company in Finland, and we’re seeing more of them every year. But scaling beyond that size while keeping talent density high is much harder, and the benefits compared to other hubs aren’t always obvious. Another perspective worth considering is the role of international companies. Before Covid we saw examples like Zalando and Unity (after the Amplifier acquisition), that continue to grow the hubs year over year with dozens of job openings
Lately, there’s been less of that. As a recruiter I see the growing number of new companies and applicants per job, but not growing number of jobs and HC growth of newly founded companies. Even though major players like FAANG have entities here, they aren’t expanding their presence. If we want to strengthen talent density, it might help to focus on how to attract more international companies to build teams here—through tax incentives or other support.
Still, the question persists:
how do we build more great companies here that hire and increase talent density in Finland?
As someone who has hired hundreds of highly skilled people and relocated dozens of families to Finland, while also hiring across Europe, I have been thinking about this and tried to articulate my observations. I do not claim to be the smartest person in the room. I may be wrong on parts, or some of these ideas have already been tried or are in progress. Either way, more visibility encourages discussion.
Here is my core view, and it is positive.
Finland is founder-friendly. It is excellent for small and startup-phase teams and for talent relocation, with predictable state support. Finland is strong in stability, clarity, and baseline R&D support, but weaker in liquidity, scale, and flow mechanics. The gaps are not small tweaks. They sit at the leverage points where founders decide to scale, reside, or relocate.
What it means: Shares and options should be easy to grant and worth real money when a company succeeds.
Why it matters: Equity is how startups attract senior engineers and keep teams through the messy middle. If tax feels risky, people ask for cash and runway burns faster.
Finland today: Good for direct share issues in private companies. Weak for classic stock options. No simple valuation safe harbor.
The fix: Add a clear option path where tax is paid on sale at capital-gains rates. Publish simple valuation bands so pricing is predictable.
Borrowed from and does it work: Israel’s Section 102 and the UK’s EMI are widely used and well understood by employees and investors. The US 409A safe harbor gives predictable pricing.
What it means: If a company is not profitable yet, pay a cash refund on R&D rather than a deduction it cannot use.
Why it matters: Early teams spend on product before revenue. Refundability keeps hiring and experiments alive.
Finland today: Helpful deductions, but capped and non-refundable. Loss-makers leave value on the table.
The fix: Make the R&D credit refundable for loss-making firms. Add clear relief for prototypes, factory automation, and AI compute.
Borrowed from and does it work: Canada’s SR&ED and the UK’s SME R&D credits have supported thousands of startups through downturns. Poland’s prototype and robotization relief helped hardware and industrial tech adopt faster.
What it means: Profits from patents and software built in Finland can choose a lower, clean rate if they meet strict criteria.
Why it matters: IP can be booked anywhere. A focused regime keeps valuable rights, jobs, and future tax here.
Finland today: No focused IP regime that competes with the best, behind peers on this lever
The fix: Introduce a narrow Innovation Box with strong guardrails so only real Finnish-developed IP qualifies.
Borrowed from and does it work: The Netherlands Innovation Box and the UK Patent Box have kept IP onshore. Poland’s 5 percent IP Box is used by product companies as they move from R&D to revenue.
What it means: Seed funding is fine. The drop-off comes when companies need 50 to 150 million euro to scale.
Why it matters: Without domestic co-leaders at that size, founders move headquarters, list abroad, or slow down.
Finland today: Can attract big foreign rounds, but local late-stage capital is thin and cannot co-lead regularly.
The fix: Create state-matched growth funds so domestic investors can co-lead large rounds. Add a venture-debt guarantee so banks lend without forcing heavy dilution.
Borrowed from and does it work: Israel’s Yozma model built the local VC market and Yozma-style matching is being used again. Singapore pairs public capital with private lenders to scale venture debt.
What it means: The fast permit is great. The first month of life here should be just as smooth for the whole family.
Why it matters: Talent chooses the path of least hassle. If permits are fast but banking, tax IDs, Kela, and daycare drag, people choose another country.
Finland today: Two-week D-visa is a strength. Onboarding still has too many steps and edge cases.
The fix: Widen eligibility for certified startups. Allow accredited employer-of-record contractors. Make partner work rights universal. Give one English-first digital path for all day-one admin.
Borrowed from and does it work: Canada’s Global Talent Stream, the Netherlands highly skilled migrant route, and Estonia’s digital admin cut time and stress for families.
What it means: Set aside a small share of public digital spend for startups and convert successful pilots into real contracts on a clear timeline.
Why it matters: Pilots teach. Production pays salaries and creates case studies that unlock private customers.
Finland today: Supportive programs exist. Conversion to production is not guaranteed and timelines drift.
The fix: Reserve at least two percent of new public digital spend for SMEs and startups. If a pilot hits targets, convert it into a production contract within six to twelve months.
Borrowed from and does it work: The UK G-Cloud and SBRI opened procurement to smaller vendors. Singapore’s regulators run sandboxes that move pilots into live use.
What it means: If founders build teams in Finland and hold for years, treat part of their exit more gently.
Why it matters: This nudges founders to keep headquarters and key roles here. It also recycles gains into the next generation of startups.
Finland today: Normal capital-gains rules. No targeted founder relief tied to local jobs and holding period. Neutral today, but clear room to lead.
The fix: Tax the first 500 thousand euro of qualifying founder gains at half the normal rate if shares were held at least four years and at least five roles were based in Finland.
Borrowed from and does it work: The UK Business Asset Disposal Relief and Canada’s lifetime capital gains exemptions have encouraged founder retention and reinvestment.
In Review
Legislation
5 months ago
Get notified by email when there are changes.
In Review
Legislation
5 months ago
Get notified by email when there are changes.