In the seventh edition of our breakthrough series, EP Wired is taking a closer look at executive protection in Finland. We have interviewed three industry professionals and asked them to share their experiences working in the country. Here’s what they had to say.
What are the unexpected benefits of executive protection in your country?
“In Finland, the biggest surprise is that executive protection is less about visible security and more about enabling business continuity and trust.”
Even though Finland is considered a low-crime country, executive protection plays a strategic role that goes far beyond physical safety. Under Finnish law, personal protection is formally part of licensed guarding activity and strictly regulated, which usually guarantees a high level of professionalism and accountability.
What is often overlooked is its preventive impact. In a society built on trust, the goal is not to react to incidents but to ensure they never materialize. Executive protection contributes to smoother public appearances, reduced reputational risks, and better preparedness in crisis situations.
Another underestimated benefit is cognitive. When senior executives do not need to constantly consider their personal safety, they can focus entirely on decision-making and leadership. This “security as an enabler” mindset is increasingly valued in Finnish organizations.
Finally, as Finnish companies operate more globally, executive protection supports safe mobility in higher-risk regions. In that sense, it bridges the gap between Finland’s low-risk domestic environment and more complex international operating contexts. – Antti Mäkinen
How does operating in your country differ from working anywhere else?
Operating in Finland differs from many other countries due to the nation’s generally low crime rate, high levels of public trust, and well-organized public infrastructure. Executive Protection in Finland is often less focused on overt security measures and more centered on discreet risk management, advance planning, situational awareness, and maintaining a low-profile protective presence.
Protective operations must also account for Finland’s unique environmental conditions, particularly during winter months when severe weather, limited daylight hours, and challenging road conditions can impact movement plans and emergency response capabilities. Additionally, close coordination with local authorities, venue operators, and transportation providers is essential, especially during high-profile international events, government visits, or corporate engagements. – Solomon Adeyemi
What kind of training or certification do you need to work in your country?
In Finland, all private security roles fall under the Act on Private Security Services. So, to work as a private close protection operative in Finland, there is no single “close protection license” as such. Instead, you must meet the legal requirements under Finnish private security legislation and typically hold a combination of mandatory licenses + specialized training.
The minimum requirement to work in any private security role is completion of basic security guard training. The length of a basic course is 120 hours of training. To acquire the license, you must also have a clean criminal record and approval from the local Police. Without this license, you cannot legally work in any guarding or protection role.
These training requirements represent the minimum standard for employment as a private security officer in Finland. However, this baseline qualification alone is generally insufficient for roles in close protection, as employers typically require a significantly higher level of competence and proven operational capability. It is common practice for organizations to internally identify and further train individuals who demonstrate strong professional aptitude, reliability, and the appropriate mindset for more demanding assignments, such as close protection duties.
The availability of close protection training in Finland remains relatively limited. This is largely due to the modest level of demand within the domestic market. Furthermore, security companies may tend to rely on in-house training rather than external providers. The personal protection segment is still small in Finland, which is reflected in the narrow scope of training opportunities. Nevertheless, a small number of established training providers do operate in the market, and their courses generally follow internationally recognized training frameworks and methodologies. – Wille Heino
Where do you stand in the discussion regarding firearms and whether to carry or not to carry on assignments?
My thoughts regarding firearms in private security roles in Finland are simple: they are not a default solution, especially in close protection; they are a single tool in a toolbox dictated by the threat environment and legal framework. Here in Finland, the operating environment is different from that of many higher-risk countries.
Firearms are tightly regulated, and the routine arming of private security personnel is neither common nor, in most cases, necessary. There are virtually no known or publicly documented cases in Finland in recent decades where a private security officer has used a firearm in an operational situation.
The baseline threat level is low regarding armed attacks against principals, and protective operations are typically designed around prevention, situational awareness, and advance planning rather than the use of force. The decision to carry should always be driven by a risk and threat assessment and the operating environment, and not by habit or client expectations. In the Finnish context, an emphasis on low-profile and proportionate protective measures is both effective and aligned with legal and societal expectations.
In addition, there are a few operational drawbacks to carrying firearms, particularly in assignments that involve international or domestic travel. For example, moving with firearms across country borders is more complex. Air travel usually becomes slow and restrictive due to the declaration, documentation, and securing of weapons with airlines and authorities.
Usually, the case is that private security officers can’t carry in different countries and must depend on local licensed security partners. This also works in the opposite direction and creates opportunities, as local security companies can provide armed support to foreign teams if needed.
Operational flexibility is also reduced because last-minute changes to travel plans may become more difficult or time-consuming when firearms are involved. Storage issues must be dealt with regarding lawful storage in hotels, vehicles, or temporary facilities, and that adds another layer of risk management.
All this said, I do not view this as an ideological question. In certain risk environments or situations where the threat level justifies it, carrying a firearm can be appropriate and necessary. But even then, it must remain a last-resort capability. As a firearms instructor myself, I do want to emphasize that carrying a firearm must always be supported by rigorous training, clear legal authority, and strict operational discipline. – Wille Heino
What are the unique tools and technologies you carry to help you work in your country?
Executive Protection professionals in Finland typically rely on a combination of standard protective security equipment and technologies adapted to the local environment. These may include:
- Secure, encrypted communication devices for team coordination.
- GPS-enabled route planning and vehicle tracking systems.
- Real-time weather monitoring applications to assess road and travel conditions, particularly during winter.
- Digital threat intelligence and risk-monitoring platforms for event and travel security assessments.
- Medical trauma kits and emergency response equipment suitable for remote locations and harsh weather conditions.
- Portable power banks, satellite communication devices (for operations in remote northern regions), and vehicle emergency kits.
- Thermal clothing and cold-weather protective gear are designed to support prolonged outdoor operations in sub-zero temperatures.
The emphasis is often on preparedness, communication, and contingency planning rather than extensive tactical equipment. — Solomon Adeyemi
How do cultural or political factors influence the security landscape in your region?
“The Finnish security landscape is shaped by a combination of high societal trust and rapidly evolving geopolitical realities.”
Culturally, Finland is a high-trust society where institutions are reliable, and rules are generally respected. This reduces the baseline need for visible or aggressive security measures. Security services tend to be discreet, intelligence-led, and focused on prevention rather than deterrence.
At the same time, legislation plays a defining role. The private security sector is tightly regulated, and the powers of security personnel are clearly defined by law. This legal clarity supports both accountability and public acceptance, but it also limits the adoption of more force-oriented protection models commonly seen elsewhere.
Politically, the landscape has shifted significantly in recent years. Finland’s NATO membership and broader geopolitical tensions have increased awareness around security risks, including hybrid threats, cyber risks, and critical infrastructure protection.
Despite these changes, the overall threat environment remains relatively stable. For example, the terrorism threat level is considered “elevated” but not high, reflecting a need for vigilance without widespread disruption.
This combination—low day-to-day risk but high strategic awareness—creates a unique environment where security is embedded into governance and risk management rather than treated as a standalone function. – Antti Mäkinen
What are the most common types of threats or security concerns faced by clients in your country?
In Finland, the threat landscape for close protection is generally considered low, and most security concerns are different from those in higher-risk countries. The most common challenges are not from organized violent threats, but rather from a combination of low-probability, high-impact risks and more routine situational factors. Obliviously the threats vary depending on the principal’s profile and nature of the visit.
Clients can have different security concerns that may be real or perceived. One important aspect of close protection is the ability to provide peace of mind. Finland shares a border with Russia, a country currently engaged in war, and while this has no direct impact on daily life in Finland, it occasionally does influence client perception.
International clients may arrive with preconceived concerns about the regional security situation. Part of our role is therefore not only to assess and manage actual risks, but also to address these perceptions in a professional and fact-based manner. Providing reassurance and a realistic understanding of the environment is a key component there.
Regarding more traditional physical threats to clients, the most likely risks are traffic-related incidents and health emergencies. In Finland, serious, premeditated attacks against corporate executives are rare.
However, the primary risks stem from acts of violence committed by lone individuals, impulsive behavior in public settings, people under the influence of substances, and individuals experiencing psychological distress or undergoing radicalization. A typical characteristic of the threat environment is that risks are not professionally organized, but rather situational and emotionally driven.
Public and open events present situations of elevated risk. Risk level arises particularly in environments where the audience is near the principal, and access is open or only lightly controlled. Risk increases further when the event is widely publicized in advance, making the principal’s presence predictable.
Typical high-risk scenarios include election events, discussions involving economic or socio-political tensions, and appearances by corporate executives in connection with layoffs or restructuring processes. Risk levels also tend to rise during periods of economic instability, heightened geopolitical tensions, and in connection with controversial decisions. Socio-political movements such as pro-Palestinian demonstrations, climate activism, anti-elite sentiment, and broader anti-corporate movements can quickly translate into security risks for C-level leadership.
In times of crisis, corporate executives may become symbolic targets of opposition, particularly during periods of geopolitical tension or wider social unrest.
Threats of stalking and harassment represent a key risk for corporate executives and private clients. Threats often take the form of repeated hostile or abusive communication. Approaches via social media, including targeted harassment or coordinated campaigns, are increasingly common. This can escalate into physical following or waiting near locations such as workplaces or private homes.
Data leaks involving personal or family information represent a growing area of concern. Targeted hate speech and disinformation campaigns directed at the principal can further elevate risk. Coordinated online campaigns may increase pressure and unpredictability in public settings, potentially escalating the overall threat environment.
From an operational standpoint, the emphasis in Finland is on prevention, early detection, and de-escalation. Protective work should be intelligence-led and rely on situational awareness, advance work, and coordination with authorities and different stakeholders when necessary.
Violent, physical threats do exist, but they are statistically rare. As a result, the operational model does not prioritize force, but rather risk avoidance and control of the environment. Success in this context is maintaining normalcy and ensuring that incidents never materialize. – Wille Heino
Can you share a memorable experience or case where your skills as a bodyguard were put to the test in your country?
During a high-profile corporate executive visit in northern Finland, a severe winter storm developed unexpectedly while the principal was traveling between locations. Road conditions deteriorated rapidly, visibility dropped significantly, and several planned routes became unsafe.
The protection team’s advance planning and contingency measures proved critical. Alternative routes had already been identified, local authorities were consulted for real-time updates, and secure shelter locations had been pre-designated along the journey. The executive’s schedule was adjusted, movements were rerouted, and the team maintained continuous communication throughout the operation.
While there was no direct security threat, the incident highlighted a key aspect of Executive Protection in Finland: the greatest risks are often environmental rather than criminal. The successful management of the situation demonstrated the importance of risk assessment, advance work, logistics planning, and maintaining operational flexibility under rapidly changing conditions.
These experiences reinforce that effective Executive Protection in Finland is built on preparation, discretion, adaptability, and the ability to manage both security and environmental risks simultaneously. – Solomon Adeyemi
What are some emerging trends or challenges in the field of private security and personal protection in your country?
“The key trend is the fusion of physical security, digital security, and intelligence into a single risk management function.”
One of the most significant developments in Finland is the growing importance of cyber and information security. Traditional threats are still present, but digital risks—such as online fraud, identity theft, and cyberattacks—are increasing and reshaping the industry.
As a result, executive protection is no longer limited to physical presence. It now includes travel risk intelligence, secure communications, and data protection. This shift requires new competencies and closer integration with corporate risk management and IT functions.
Technology is another major driver. The use of advanced surveillance systems, analytics, and even drone-based monitoring is expanding across the sector. These tools improve situational awareness but also raise questions about privacy, regulation, and ethical use—especially in a society that strongly values individual rights.
At the same time, global dynamics are increasingly influencing the Finnish security environment. Hybrid threats, geopolitical tensions, and cross-border crime are all factors that elevate the need for more sophisticated protection services.
The main challenges going forward are clear: balancing strict regulation with innovation, addressing the shortage of highly skilled professionals—particularly in cyber-related roles—and managing expectations in a culture that prefers low visibility in security arrangements.
“Ultimately, the future of executive protection in Finland lies in its ability to remain discreet while becoming increasingly comprehensive.” – Antti Mäkinen
For their participation in the series, EP Wired would like to thank Antti Mäkinen, Solomon Adeyemi, and Wille Heino.
Find the previous series entries here:
