Across the world, the struggle to maintain trust plays out in the tension between soft and sharp power; between using credible information to foster mutual understanding or manipulating it to divide and control. These forces aren’t new, but today’s technologies amplify their reach and impact. The difference often lies in information governance: who sets the rules, who enforces them, and whose interests are served.

As a Fulbright Scholar to Finland in 2023–24, I set out to understand how a country with some of the highest levels of public trust in the world sustains confidence in its information systems. I worked with Finnish experts in health, education, policy, and library science to explore how ethical principles and regulatory frameworks shape that trust. Through a structured Delphi study–a multi-round process that collects and refines expert perspectives–we identified four core principles that anchor Finland’s approach: transparency, accountability, inclusivity, and adaptability.

Transparency: In Finland, transparency is not just a communications strategy; it’s a legal obligation. The Act on the Openness of Government Activities (621/1999) makes information held by public authorities accessible by default, while the Data Protection Act (1050/2018) and the EU General Data Protection Regulation safeguard citizens’ privacy. Together, these laws ensure that people can see how information moves through public systems while knowing their personal data is secure. That balance between openness and protection reinforces confidence in both the message and the messenger.

Accountability: Trust also depends on clear lines of responsibility. The Act on Information Management in Public Administration (906/2019) requires each government agency to appoint an information management officer responsible for the quality, accessibility, and security of information. The Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003) complements this by mandating fairness, impartiality, and transparency in all public decision-making. When oversight is visible and codified, legitimacy becomes a shared expectation rather than a crisis response.

Inclusivity: Information systems build trust when they work for everyone. Finland’s Language Act (423/2003) and Non-Discrimination Act (1325/2014) require that official communication be available in both national languages—Finnish and Swedish—and accessible to Sámi and other linguistic minorities. Public agencies publish health and government updates in multiple languages, while libraries and schools help translate and adapt these messages for local communities. By embedding inclusion in everyday practice, Finland ensures that civic participation is not limited by language, literacy, or privilege.

Adaptability: Technology evolves faster than policy, and institutions that can’t keep pace risk losing public confidence. The Act on Electronic Services and Communication in the Field of Health and Social Services (159/2007) and the Act on Information Management in Public Administration (906/2019) promote secure, interoperable, and flexible information systems. The experts I interviewed described adaptability as a willingness to learn, test, and revise. In practice, that means experimenting with new communication tools, evaluating outcomes, and adjusting strategies to meet people’s needs. Adaptability closes the gap between innovation and understanding.

Ethical principles aren’t only reflected in legal frameworks; they’re also reinforced through education. Media and information literacy are intentionally embedded in Finland’s national curriculum. Instruction begins in early childhood and continues through secondary school, with students learning to assess sources, recognize bias, and communicate ethically. Teacher preparation mirrors this progression, integrating information literacy into pre-service coursework and ongoing professional development. Libraries carry these lessons forward, ensuring that citizens of all ages have access to information, privacy support, and spaces for dialogue. The result is an information ecosystem where critical thinking becomes a shared public responsibility.

But even high-trust societies have vulnerabilities. The Finnish experts I spoke with raised important cautions. Strong public confidence can sometimes discourage scrutiny or delay reform, particularly when technologies or social norms evolve faster than institutions. They also pointed to persistent digital divides among older adults, rural communities, and immigrant populations. Some noted that rigid regulatory structures, while effective in maintaining oversight, can slow cross-sector collaboration and innovation. In their view, maintaining trust requires both good design and the humility to revise systems as conditions change.

Librarians, educators, and other information professionals model this balance. Their efforts to expand information access, protect privacy, and teach information literacy are foundational. Each act of teaching, archiving, or communicating responsibly helps shape an information environment that earns trust rather than demands it.

Building trust in an age of misinformation will not come only from better fact-checking or adjustments to information-seeking behavior. It will depend on how well our systems are designed. Ethics, policy, and education each play a role, but only when they work together can they form a foundation for public confidence. Finland’s approach and its results suggest that trust is not a cultural constant or a policy outcome, but a relationship sustained through the everyday choices of how we govern, teach, and share information. Trust, like information itself, is never static. It moves, evolves, and demands our constant care.