government

Republic of Finland

A high-capacity parliamentary democracy with strong civil liberties, public services, and rule-of-law constraints, included as a high-scoring national-government calibration anchor rather than as a shopping recommendation. Republic of Finland scores well because governance has stronger accountability than peers and ownership is comparatively aligned, though person-dependent governance and ecological harm still limits the evaluation.

Why this matters: Finland tests whether the rubric can recognize unusually constrained state power while still charging governments for coercive state capacity, borders, climate burden, and surveillance risk.

Letter grade A Good Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 6, 2026

Final Score 51* A - Good

AGOOD51 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material54

Bonus+9

Cap66No structure cap

After Cap63

Penalties-12

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

A - Good

The score turns mainly on Governance, with the largest penalty coming from Reversibility.

Strengths

Governance9/10
Ownership8/10
Labor Sovereignty7/7

Penalties

Reversibility-5
Ecological Harm-3
Human Harm-1
Coercive Violence-1

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims12
Direct axis claims12
Coverage12/19

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	8 / 10	Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. That places Republic of Finland high on Ownership: decisive control is held by workers, users, members, or another stakeholder class rather than outside capital. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 168 scored entries below, 32 tied, 26 above on Ownership. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. [1] context Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. [2]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	9 / 10	Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. That places Republic of Finland high on Governance: binding decisions are meaningfully answerable to people inside or affected by the institution. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 207 scored entries below, 17 tied, 2 above on Governance. Uncertainty Priority page: add more axis-specific research over time to make the comparative placement harder to dispute. Linked evidence Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. [1] context Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. [2]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	6 / 10	Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. That places Republic of Finland in the middle of Extraction: the institution creates real value but still leaves room for rent extraction, unequal bargaining, or surplus capture. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 115 scored entries below, 24 tied, 87 above on Extraction. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. [1] context Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. [2]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	7 / 7	Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. That places Republic of Finland high on Labor Sovereignty: workers or participants have unusually strong formal power over work, conditions, or the institution itself. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 205 scored entries below, 21 tied, 0 above on Labor Sovereignty. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. [1] context Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. [2]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	6 / 7	Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. That places Republic of Finland high on Solidarity with the Unemployed: the institution materially supports people outside ordinary employment rather than treating exit as abandonment. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 197 scored entries below, 22 tied, 7 above on Solidarity with the Unemployed. Uncertainty Priority page: add more axis-specific research over time to make the comparative placement harder to dispute. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. [1] Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. [2]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	6 / 7	Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. That places Republic of Finland high on Loss-Bearing Fidelity: the institution is structured to absorb real costs rather than shifting losses onto weaker parties. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 163 scored entries below, 54 tied, 9 above on Loss-Bearing Fidelity. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. [1] context Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. [2]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	4 / 5	Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. That places Republic of Finland high on Market Conduct: pricing, access, switching, and bargaining practices show restraint compared with ordinary rent-seeking competitors. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 106 scored entries below, 73 tied, 47 above on Market Conduct. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. [1] context Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. [2]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	4 / 5	Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. That places Republic of Finland high on Product Integrity: the core offering is genuinely useful and comparatively less dependent on traps, degradation, or harmful dependencies. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 61 scored entries below, 72 tied, 93 above on Product Integrity. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. [1] context Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. [2]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	4 / 5	Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. That places Republic of Finland high on Scale Integrity: growth appears compatible with accountability, quality, and stakeholder benefit. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 109 scored entries below, 81 tied, 36 above on Scale Integrity. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. [1] context Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. [2]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Reversibility ? Applied when positive conduct depends on current living leaders, founders, family owners, or other person-contingent governance rather than durable structure. Range: -5 to 0.	-5	Finland’s high score still depends on maintainable constitutional culture, electoral outcomes, and public institutions that can deteriorate over time. Finland’s high score still depends on maintainable constitutional culture, electoral outcomes, and public institutions that can deteriorate over time. That warrants a severe Reversibility penalty because favorable conduct depends on current people or discretionary leadership rather than locked stakeholder structure. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 95 tied, 131 above on Reversibility. Linked evidence Finland’s high score still depends on maintainable constitutional culture, electoral outcomes, and public institutions that can deteriorate over time. [7]
Human Harm ? Severity, scale, culpability, vulnerable targets, willful reoffense, reputation laundering, pattern escalation, and time decay. Range: -20 to 0.	-1	Even high-performing democratic states retain coercive border, policing, detention, and military powers, so Finland retains conduct relevant to the residual human-harm penalty. Even high-performing democratic states retain coercive border, policing, detention, and military powers, so Finland retains conduct relevant to the residual human-harm penalty. That warrants a limited Human Harm penalty because ordinary operation, documented misconduct, or institutional power creates serious injury, deprivation, abuse, or foreseeable human damage. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 55 scored entries below, 1 tied, 170 above on Human Harm. Linked evidence Even high-performing democratic states retain coercive border, policing, detention, and military powers, so Finland retains conduct relevant to the residual human-harm penalty. [8]
Coercive Violence ? Direct or institutionally enabled killing, torture, detention abuse, armed repression, forced displacement, violent domination, or nonconsensual crisis-line emergency escalation that exposes callers to confinement or force. Range: -30 to 0.	-1	Finland retains coercive border, policing, detention, and military powers despite unusually strong democratic safeguards, describes conduct considered under Coercive Violence. Finland retains coercive border, policing, detention, and military powers despite unusually strong democratic safeguards, describes conduct considered under Coercive Violence. That warrants a limited Coercive Violence penalty because the institution uses, enables, profits from, or materially supports violent domination, detention abuse, war, or armed coercion. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 19 scored entries below, 1 tied, 206 above on Coercive Violence. Linked evidence Finland retains coercive border, policing, detention, and military powers despite unusually strong democratic safeguards, describes conduct considered under Coercive Violence. [9]
Ecological Harm ? Footprint, trajectory, irreversibility, culpability, and scale, including whether ecological harm is central to the model and continued after credible notice. Range: -30 to 0.	-3	Finland remains a high-income industrial state with material consumption and emissions responsibilities, so the ecological score applies a residual national footprint penalty. Finland remains a high-income industrial state with material consumption and emissions responsibilities, so the ecological score applies a residual national footprint penalty. That warrants a limited Ecological Harm penalty because the institution causes or defends ecological damage that is more than incidental to the model. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 43 scored entries below, 9 tied, 174 above on Ecological Harm. Linked evidence Finland remains a high-income industrial state with material consumption and emissions responsibilities, so the ecological score applies a residual national footprint penalty. [10]
Surveillance Capture ? Invasive surveillance, unreasonably non-optional tracking, facial recognition, biometric identification, or AI behavior scanning of customers, workers, bystanders, or the public. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	Finland retains ordinary state surveillance, policing, border, and security-service powers even though its democratic safeguards are unusually strong. Finland retains ordinary state surveillance, policing, border, and security-service powers even though its democratic safeguards are unusually strong. That warrants a limited Surveillance Capture penalty because customers, workers, users, bystanders, or the public are exposed to invasive tracking, biometrics, or behavior scanning. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 35 scored entries below, 2 tied, 189 above on Surveillance Capture. Linked evidence Finland retains ordinary state surveillance, policing, border, and security-service powers even though its democratic safeguards are unusually strong. [11]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	Republic of Finland's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Republic of Finland shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are softened through… Republic of Finland's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Republic of Finland shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are softened through expertise, public-interest, professional, market, safety, or institutional language, but the record does not show dominant concealment of. That warrants a limited Ideological Disavowal penalty because the institution presents situated, contested choices as neutrality, expertise, inevitability, safety, or common sense. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Ideological Disavowal 0 to -3 recalibration: 0 for explicit standpoint or no penalty-level neutrality theater; -1 for bounded softening of contested choices; -2 for strong neutrality theater by a powerful institution; -3 for major gatekeeping or coercive power presented as neutral, necessary, objective, or non-ideological. Uncertainty This recalibration uses public self-presentation and profile evidence; later review should add direct language-analysis evidence for high-impact institutions. Linked evidence Republic of Finland's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Republic of Finland shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are softened through expertise, public-interest, professional, market, safety, or institutional language, but the record does not show dominant concealment of standpoint. [12]

Bonus Credits

Bonus	Credit	Why this credit
Openness to Dissent ? Credit for tolerating internal, user, customer, worker, and public dissent without retaliation, capture, or viewpoint laundering.	3 / 3	Freedom House rates Finland at the top tier for political rights and civil liberties, describes conduct considered under Openness to Dissent. Freedom House rates Finland at the top tier for political rights and civil liberties, describes conduct considered under Openness to Dissent. That supports full Openness to Dissent credit because people can criticize, dissent, or challenge the institution without being managed into silence. Full credit is reserved for unusually clear, profile-specific evidence rather than ordinary compliance language. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 216 scored entries below, 10 tied, 0 above on Openness to Dissent. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints. [1] Freedom House rates Finland at the top tier for political rights and civil liberties, describes conduct considered under Openness to Dissent. [3]
Constitutional Spirit ? Credit for respecting constitutional rights and civil-liberties norms even where private law does not strictly require it.	3 / 3	Freedom House rates Finland highly on political rights and civil liberties, supporting a constitutional-spirit bonus for a government with strong rights constraints. Freedom House rates Finland highly on political rights and civil liberties, supporting a constitutional-spirit bonus for a government with strong rights constraints. That supports full Constitutional Spirit credit because the institution respects speech, privacy, due process, conscience, or civil-liberties norms beyond bare legal compulsion. Full credit is reserved for unusually clear, profile-specific evidence rather than ordinary compliance language. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 212 scored entries below, 14 tied, 0 above on Constitutional Spirit. Linked evidence Freedom House rates Finland highly on political rights and civil liberties, supporting a constitutional-spirit bonus for a government with strong rights constraints. [4]
Good Deal ? Credit for unusually fair value: durable quality, fair pricing, low lock-in, and clear customer surplus.	1 / 3	Finland’s public-service and social-protection model provides unusually broad public value relative to coercive and tax burdens, supporting a limited good-deal bonus for a state entity. Finland’s public-service and social-protection model provides unusually broad public value relative to coercive and tax burdens, supporting a limited good-deal bonus for a state entity. That supports partial Good Deal credit because ordinary users receive unusually fair value, durability, access, or surplus. The value remains partial because the linked record does not show the practice as comprehensive, durable, or central enough for full credit. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 163 scored entries below, 21 tied, 42 above on Good Deal. Linked evidence context Finland’s government describes social-security and public-service systems that make basic welfare a public obligation rather than a private employment-only benefit. [2] Finland’s public-service and social-protection model provides unusually broad public value relative to coercive and tax burdens, supporting a limited good-deal bonus for a state entity. [5]
Cost Transparency ? Credit for clear posted prices, all-in fees, unit costs, public rate cards, margin/cost visibility, or surplus-allocation transparency, especially in markets where opaque quotes, hidden fees, or individualized pricing are normal.	2 / 3	Finland’s high Freedom House rating and official public-government information support a cost-transparency bonus for relatively open, accountable administration. Finland’s high Freedom House rating and official public-government information support a cost-transparency bonus for relatively open, accountable administration. That supports partial Cost Transparency credit because pricing, margins, fees, funding, or surplus allocation are made meaningfully legible. The value remains partial because the linked record does not show the practice as comprehensive, durable, or central enough for full credit. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 201 scored entries below, 12 tied, 13 above on Cost Transparency. Linked evidence Finland’s high Freedom House rating and official public-government information support a cost-transparency bonus for relatively open, accountable administration. [6]

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 69/100

12 verified linked claims 12 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 12/19 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 15/20

12 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 9/18

12 direct claims across 19 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 6/10

12/19 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Freedom House rates Finland as one of the freest countries in the world, reflecting competitive elections, broad civil liberties, and strong rule-of-law constraints.

Governance Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: Finland, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

3Freedom House rates Finland at the top tier for political rights and civil liberties, describes conduct considered under Openness to Dissent.

Openness To Dissent Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: Finland, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

4Freedom House rates Finland highly on political rights and civil liberties, supporting a constitutional-spirit bonus for a government with strong rights constraints.

Constitutional Spirit Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: Finland, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

5Finland’s public-service and social-protection model provides unusually broad public value relative to coercive and tax burdens, supporting a limited good-deal bonus for a state entity.

Good Deal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Finnish Government front pageGeneral web source · 58%

6Finland’s high Freedom House rating and official public-government information support a cost-transparency bonus for relatively open, accountable administration.

Cost Transparency Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: Finland, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%
Finnish Government front pageGeneral web source · 58%

7Finland’s high score still depends on maintainable constitutional culture, electoral outcomes, and public institutions that can deteriorate over time.

Reversibility Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: Finland, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

8Even high-performing democratic states retain coercive border, policing, detention, and military powers, so Finland retains conduct relevant to the residual human-harm penalty.

Human Harm Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: Finland, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

9Finland retains coercive border, policing, detention, and military powers despite unusually strong democratic safeguards, describes conduct considered under Coercive Violence.

Coercive Violence Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: Finland, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

10Finland remains a high-income industrial state with material consumption and emissions responsibilities, so the ecological score applies a residual national footprint penalty.

Ecological Harm Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

IEA countries: FinlandGeneral web source · 58%

11Finland retains ordinary state surveillance, policing, border, and security-service powers even though its democratic safeguards are unusually strong.

Surveillance Capture Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: Finland, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

12Republic of Finland's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Republic of Finland shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are softened through expertise, public-interest, professional, market, safety, or institutional language, but the record does not show dominant concealment of standpoint.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 9, 2026

AI scaffold

Republic of Finland official siteGeneral web source · 58%
Freedom House: Finland, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%
IEA countries: FinlandGeneral web source · 58%

Competitors

CPERFORMATIVE37 Kingdom of Norway government · Norway DEXTRACTIVE27 Federal Student Aid U.S. Department of Education student-aid office · United States DEXTRACTIVE23 United Nations intergovernmental organization · Global FMALIGNANT-17 United States federal government government · United States FMALIGNANT-19 Palestinian Authority government / limited self-government authority · Palestine FMALIGNANT-52 State of Israel government government · Israel FMALIGNANT-60 Hamas armed group / de facto authority · Israel FMALIGNANT-61 People’s Republic of China government · China

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Republic of Finland Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

May 6, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai-scaffolding

View Full Audit Log