Gofore

We offer expert knowledge in digitalization.

Situational snapshot

The elements of trust in a digital society

How can we preserve a high-trust society in the digital world?

Gofore explored the elements that build societal trust in the digital age as we move towards the era of agentic AI. This situational snapshot is based on interviews with 15 digitalisation leaders and senior experts conducted in spring 2026. 

High trust is like the invisible operating system of Finnish society. It enables many of the things that make everyday life run smoothly. High trust encourages citizens to allow public authorities to use their data, which is a prerequisite for building a digital society. 

In the digital world, however, trust has two extremes. On one hand, it is tested by digital scams, deepfakes and algorithm-shaped worldviews. On the other, high trust may make us too carefree online and even dangerously naive. 

This report identifies five phenomena from the interview material, named trust tensions, that erode the formation of societal trust and thereby weaken the sustainability of digital society and its services. These tensions also represent significant societal discussions on digitalisation — discussions that Finland’s next government cannot afford to neglect. 

Identified trust tensions

Aerial view from Helsinki

Interviewed leaders and senior experts

Antti Kauppinen – Erillisverkot
Antti Ylä-Jarkko – KeuSote (Central Finland Health and Social Services County)
Heikki Heikkilä – KEHA Centre (Development and Administration Centre for the ELY Centres and TE Offices)
Ismo Parviainen – Ministry of the Interior
Jaakko Lempinen – Yle
Jarkko Levasma – Ministry of Finance
Johanna Vuorelma – Tampere University
Jukka Nikkilä – Finnish Defence Forces
Maria Rautavirta – Ministry of Transport and Communications
Markku Heinäsenaho – Ministry of Social Affairs and Health
Nina Nissilä – Kela (Social Insurance Institution of Finland)
Peter Sund – Cyber Security Industry, Technology Industries of Finland
Petteri Hemminki – Finnish Defence Forces
Sasa Haavisto – National Police Board
Ville Peltola – Technology Industries of Finland

The initiative was advised by Jarkko Levasma, ICT Director at the Ministry of Finance. 

Tension 1

A high-trust society is not eternal

Trust has been the invisible operating system of Finnish society, but it must not be taken for granted. A high-trust society is neither self-sustaining nor eternal. Identifying what unites us, and turning it into something shared, requires conscious effort. If the cultural heritage of trust is not passed on to new generations, we will be in trouble. 

Renewing trust requires identifying the elements that bring people together and strengthening them. 

What this means

In Finland, we tend to rely on citizens’ unwavering societal trust. 

A shared Finland is no longer self-evident. The sense of belonging is, ultimately, a living cultural heritage that must be recognised and built, as it does not transfer automatically. 

The core challenge is this: societal trust is still being built from structures, when today’s world calls for leading the experience of trust. This is missing in Finland and requires a course correction. 

People’s experiences and encounters should be placed at the centre, along with building a shared reality from different perspectives and fostering a new kind of community for our time. 

Questions for Finland

  • What will unite Finns in 2036? 
  • Can our society function without a shared story? 
  • Are we too certain that high trust is something we are born with? 
  • How do we lead trust as a citizen experience? 
  • How do algorithm-driven media environments and information influence affect trust? 

What the interviewees told us

“Trust has become a collective experience.” 

“Trust is not only a dialogue between society and the individual, but above all between individuals.” 

“Perhaps we have become a little too comfortable with the idea that we are a high-trust society.” 

“The most important element is the experience of whether someone is on your side or not.” 

“A shared ‘pipeline’ of public services through Finnish society — maternity and child health clinics, daycare, the school system, further education and military service. These create a shared mental landscape and foundation for the system, and help different groups work together at least reasonably well.” 

Tension 2

People do not trust what they do not understand

Society is rushing towards the era of agentic AI. The challenges related to AI are not technical, but human. The success of this transformation depends on whether people are able to keep up with the change. 

What this means

The AI transformation is a cumulative shift, and its adoption is not being led sufficiently. Some citizens have not yet even become accustomed to the idea that they can manage their affairs digitally. 

The challenge is this: the technical functionality of services says nothing about the customer experience they create. 

Public administration optimises systems, but citizens evaluate the experience. A poor service experience quickly leads to the conclusion that the system cannot be trusted. 

Questions for Finland

  • How can people trust a service they do not understand? 
  • What actions does building trust in the age of AI require? 
  • How do we achieve the level of transparency that trust requires? 
  • How does AI change the human role and sense of agency? 
  • What does a good service experience look like in the age of AI? 
  • How do we keep everyone included in the transformation? 

What the interviewees told us

“How is trust built between a machine and a human?” 

“Who made that decision — a person or a machine?” 

“If people do not understand the service models they are expected to trust, trust is difficult to build.” 

“Digital services never get tired.” 

“We understand the impact of technology, but not its socio-cognitive and psychological impact.” 

“A machine not only changes the logic of action — it also makes people change their own behaviour.” 

Tension 3

Trusting, but on the outer circle

As a strong democracy, Finland trusts the system, while many of us do not believe we can significantly influence it. For most people, the role left in democracy is to watch decisions that affect them being made from the sidelines and to tolerate a politics of distance. 

What this means

In Finland, participation is partly tokenistic: engagement is often limited to consultation rounds where the solutions have already been prepared. 

People were asked, but their answers had no impact. The experience of agency is therefore weak. 

People want to feel that their views can influence the direction of the conversation, and even the outcome. 

Meaningful decisions are made far away from everyday life, which can blur the experience of trust and belief in the future. 

Questions for Finland

  • What happens to trust if people do not feel they are part of building society? 
  • Is the current form of democracy sufficient for the digital age? 
  • How can people be involved more effectively before decisions are made? 
  • How can citizens’ knowledge be used more effectively? 
  • How can belief in the future be passed on to the next generations? 

What the interviewees told us

“Finns trust the system, but do not feel they are its makers.” 

“Democracy is reduced to elections once every four years.” 

“There are quite few places where that dialogue can take place.” 

“We should now adopt these other democratic tools, such as citizens’ panels, much more boldly and ambitiously.” 

“Citizens possess very strong stores of knowledge that should be brought into use much more actively.” 

“The new generation should specifically challenge the prevailing structures.”

Tension 4

The greatest risk is not making mistakes, but standing still

Finnish society has been built on an ideal of getting things right. Accuracy is seen as quality, reliability and care. But in a fast-changing digital world, protecting an image of perfection is no longer enough. We need the courage to meet uncertainty, learn in the open and move forward even when everything is not yet finished. 

What this means

The ideal of flawless performance is still deeply rooted in Finnish culture. Alongside it lives a fear of failure and of public criticism. 

The effect of official responsibility on stagnation is significant. When the main goal is to avoid mistakes, renewal slows down precisely when society needs the ability to adapt. Trust is not weakened by mistakes themselves. It is weakened when mistakes are not recognised, acknowledged or corrected. 

We need to move away from a culture of hindsight and blame, and replace it with shared learning.

Questions for Finland

  • Which is the greater risk: making a mistake, or standing still? 
  • How much does the pursuit of perfection slow us down? 
  • How do we reduce the fear of making mistakes and the burden of official responsibility? 
  • Do we want to renew proactively — or only under pressure, when there is no other choice? 
  • Does our system reward those who renew it? 
  • How can we turn mistakes into visible learning? 

What the interviewees told us

“If we spend too long considering and end up watching from the sidelines, then we are not helping build the world we want.” 

“We are quite frankly overprotecting — and preventing development.” 

“If someone criticises, it is brushed aside.” 

“Too often, conversations follow the same familiar tracks.” 

“The clock speed is far too slow.” 

“The slowness shows in how we first carry out a two-year preliminary study, after which the actual study begins.” 

“In digital services, even the smallest mistake is not tolerated.” 

Waiter carring chairs outside while a man looks ahead behind the cafe window

Tension 5

Technology has become a question of security

Information influence operations are increasingly aimed not at systems themselves, but at the trust that holds society together. Although information influence has existed throughout history, many of its current forms are unfamiliar, subtle and difficult to see. That is why we do not always know how to defend ourselves against them. 

We live in a time when bits can be weaponised. The next challenge for a high-trust society is to build a digital security culture that is as everyday, shared and human-centred as our physical safety culture. 

What this means

Society is increasingly dependent on technology it does not fully control. 

Technology is no longer only technology or infrastructure. It is power. 

Technology builds wellbeing, resilience and security. At the same time, it creates new dependencies and vulnerabilities that must be understood and managed. 

High trust has been one of Finland’s great strengths. In a digital environment, however, it can also make us underestimate risks.

Our security culture has been built for the physical world, even though a growing share of today’s risks emerge in digital environments. 

Questions for Finland

  • How will a high-trust society succeed in a digital world? 
  • How can we preserve high trust without digital naivety? 
  • Can we identify slow-building risks early enough? 
  • Do we dare to renew before a crisis forces us to? 
  • What kind of digital security culture does Finland need — and who will lead it? 

What the interviewees told us

“Europe seems to be waking up to something whose existence has been known for a long time.” 

“Suddenly, technology has become a security policy issue.” 

“Now the United States is weaponising technology.” 

“Europe seems to have forgotten what our role in globalisation is. We cannot simply sit in a spa all the time.” 

“Even in digital environments, we still keep our wallet in the back pocket.” 

“Digital and security awareness should be introduced step by step already from the first year of school.” 

About the research 

The insights in this situational snapshot are based on qualitative interview research conducted by the research institute Verian on behalf of Gofore Plc between 18 March and 11 May 2026. 

The research material consists of 15 in-depth interviews, each lasting 45–60 minutes. From the broad research material, five tensions were identified in relation to the weakening of trust in Finnish digital society. After each tension, we have highlighted key questions around the formation of trust that the next Finnish Government should address. The named tensions were formulated by Gofore in collaboration with Verian. 

 

Finally: Insight

Year 2026 is the moment of truth for digitalisation

Digitalisation has entered a new phase. It is no longer only about developing individual systems or experimenting with new technologies. It is about how society’s critical functions remain capable, productive and trusted in a time shaped by geopolitical uncertainty, tightening public finances, strict spending discipline, talent shortages and rapid technological change. 

Read the viewpoint by Ewa Tawaststjerna, Director of Gofore’s Digital Government business.

Read the blog

Back to top