Robotics Scenarios 2040: Four possible futures for robotics and work in Finland

Robotics and physical AI could fundamentally change Finnish working life. As robots move beyond factories into care, services, construction and logistics, they raise important questions about productivity, the quality of work and workers’ wellbeing. Whether robotics leads to greater prosperity, growing inequality or better working lives is not predetermined. It depends on the choices Finland makes today.

In Robotics Scenarios 2040, trade unions, employer organisations and expert bodies explored these choices. Ahead of the 2027 parliamentary elections, the project sets out four possible futures for Finland and seven policy recommendations for the following government. The co-creation process also surfaced questions that partners could not agree on, which makes them all the more important to address in the upcoming political debate. 

(The publication is in Finnish.)

Four possible visions of Finland in 2040

The scenarios were developed together with the project partners, drawing on existing research, expert discussions and an analysis of the operating environment. Each describes a different way robotics could be adopted in Finland, showing who would gain or lose from it. The scenarios act as starting points for conversation; setting different futures side by side opens up discussion on what is at stake, as well as which decisions matter now. They also give employers, unions and policymakers a shared picture to work from, in a debate that often swings between hype and indifference.

• Parallel realities: Adoption goes ahead without national coordination. By 2040, two people in the same line of work can have very different working lives, depending on how extensively their employers have adopted robotics solutions.
• Negotiated transition: Adoption is negotiated by employers and trade unions, and some tasks are kept as human work. Finland automates more slowly than its competitors but keeps more trust and stability.
• Prosperous inequality: Cost-driven adoption brings a leap in productivity, and the gains go to large companies and the highly educated. Finland is wealthier than ever, yet wealth is unequally concentrated.
• Shared transition: Pushed by growing political pressure amidst layoffs driven by adoption of AI and robotics, the state, employers and unions agree to share the gains through a robot productivity tax and broad retraining. Wellbeing improves widely, but the model is contested and vulnerable to changes in government.

Seven recommendations for the next government

From the scenarios, partners together identified desirable futures and decisions that would lead there. The project partners arrived at a shared ambition for the future: robotics should improve productivity, the quality of work and workers’ wellbeing in Finland. This work resulted in seven jointly agreed recommendations for Finland’s next government:

1. Strengthen the strategic leadership of technology policy.
2. Define a target level for Finland’s digital and robotics sovereignty.
3. Clarify national legislation on robotics and AI, especially responsibilities for autonomous and learning systems.
4. Make worker participation standard practice when robotics is introduced, with a skills development plan for every deployment.
5. Support the adoption of proven robotics in social and health care with investment support and a long-term adoption pathway.
6. Secure funding for adult education and expand short courses completed alongside work.
7. Set up permanent monitoring of the impacts of robotics on workers, work communities and service users.

Political choices that remain open

Not all questions about the future of robotics can be resolved through expert consensus. Some involve fundamental political choices about the role of human work, the rights of workers and the distribution of economic benefits. The project therefore presents seven claims for political debate, each accompanied by arguments for and against. These claims do not represent the joint position of the project partners. Instead, they highlight choices that policymakers and society need to confront.

Claim	For	Against
Strategic power over technology policy should be concentrated at the centre of government, even if individual ministries lose some of their autonomy.	Clear responsibility would strengthen strategic leadership and make long-term choices easier.	A new structure could add bureaucracy and concentrate too much power in one place.
Instead of aiming for technological self-sufficiency in robotics, Finland should decide which dependencies to keep under its own control and which to accept.	Using the best global technology would speed up robotisation and lower costs.	Relying on foreign platforms could leave Finland vulnerable and locked in.
Finland should deliberately use robotics to replace human labour: as the population ages, preserving jobs cannot be the goal of robotisation.	Robots can ease labour shortages and raise productivity.	Many people are still out of work, and replacing jobs could cost Finland skills and career paths.
Legislation or collective agreements should define tasks that are reserved for people, even if robots could do them more efficiently.	Keeping some tasks for people would protect the quality of care and stop human service from becoming a luxury.	Reserving tasks could hold back the benefits of robotics in sectors short of staff.
Employees should have more power than they do today to decide on new technology that changes their work.	Employees know their work best, so involving them would lead to better results, more trust and better wellbeing.	More power for staff could slow decisions and delay investment.
Employers should take more responsibility for their employees’ retraining and livelihood when robotics reduces the need for labour.	Firms that gain from automation should also bear the costs it creates for workers and society.	Extra costs could slow investment and weaken Finnish firms’ competitiveness.
The state should play a more active role in how the productivity gains from robotics are shared.	Sharing the gains would help stop inequality and social tension from growing.	Redistribution could weaken firms’ incentive to invest in robotics.

Members of Parliament from four parties responded to the claims at the launch of the publication in Pikkuparlamentti on 10 November 2026.

Robotics Scenarios 2040 was coordinated by Demos Helsinki. The partners were Academic Engineers and Architects in Finland TEK, the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions SAK, the Industrial Union, Technology Industries of Finland, KT Kunta- ja hyvinvointialuetyönantajat, the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, and Sitra.

Interested in taking the recommendations forward or debating the open questions? Feel free to contact Johannes Mikkonen (johannes.mikkonen@demoshelsinki.fi)!