“In Finland, we need further alignment regarding the notion that strong value creation is important from a national interest perspective. The more successful our companies are, the more growth, investment, and well-being they generate for Finnish society,” says Solidium’s new CEO, Matts Rosenberg.

For Rosenberg, the current environment creates increased demand for active ownership. There is a deeper structural issue in Finland, one that goes beyond strategy and into how companies are owned, governed, and ultimately pushed to perform.

Learnings from Sweden

Matts Rosenberg has over 20 years of experience in active ownership, of which a decade was in Sweden, a country with a strong culture and heritage of active ownership and ambitious value creation. That experience shapes his view of what Finland could become.

“Finland has more potential than it has so far managed to realize,” he says.

In Sweden, ownership culture is more explicit and more assertive. Long-term owners, such as the Wallenberg sphere, have demonstrated how active and engaged ownership can shape companies across generations. In that context, value creation and national interest are not competing priorities, but mutually reinforcing outcomes.

Rosenberg’s perspective reflects that model. The guiding principle is that ownership is not a passive position, but a continuous responsibility to communicate the owner’s view in relation to the level of ambition, direction, and targets.

Finland’s structure has been different. A smaller capital base and a fragmented ownership landscape with a lack of active owners have left a gap that Solidium was originally created to fill.

The real bottleneck: execution, not strategy

Beneath the surface, a more uncomfortable reality is emerging. Finnish publicly listed companies do not appear to lack strategic ambition. What they lack is the ability to execute change consistently.

Evidence of this has been highlighted in research by Saara Karasvirta, featured in Helsingin Sanomat HS Visio. Based on interviews with 33 change leaders across 11 large companies, the study finds that transformation efforts are often inconsistent and dependent on individuals rather than institutionalized processes.

What begins as a management challenge increasingly points elsewhere. In that sense, the problem is not only operational. It is one of ownership and governance.

From passive owner to active partner

As the Finnish State’s investment arm and a minority shareholder in nationally important companies, Solidium sits at the intersection of ownership and influence. Its updated strategy places greater emphasis on growth, transformation, and long-term value creation—not only for its portfolio companies, but for Finnish society more broadly.

Historically, state ownership in Finland has been associated with stability and long-term stewardship. But it has also, at times, been perceived as passive. Solidium’s new direction challenges that legacy. Rather than acting as a traditional asset manager, the organization is seeking to operate as an active owner—one that shapes outcomes inside its portfolio companies rather than merely observing them.

“We don’t see ourselves as just managing assets. Our role is to be an active owner—creating impact through nomination committees, board work, and continuous, constructive dialogue with co-investors and key stakeholders, particularly board chairs. The level of ambition and competence within boards is critical, and if we want stronger outcomes, for example, in terms of value-creating growth, we need to actively ensure that we have the right people around the table,” says Rosenberg.

In practice, this means influencing board composition, strengthening governance, and using ownership as a lever to drive the level of ambition and direction. Value creation is pursued not only through capital allocation, but through sustained engagement with companies and their leadership. 

The shift is subtle in language, but significant in implication: the shift from passive to active and engaged ownership is centered on communicating educated shareholder views regarding the ambition level. Creating strong alignment among key stakeholders (owners, boards, and management) is a prerequisite for successful value creation journeys. Target setting and incentive design play an important role in achieving this.

This shift is not happening in isolation. Similar themes have recently emerged from other major Finnish institutional owners. As explored in Listeds’ article on Ilmarinen’s governance approach, nomination committees have become one of the most strategic tools for shaping company direction, effectively determining who sits around the table when the most consequential decisions are made.

Together, these developments point to a broader evolution in Finnish ownership culture: from passive stewardship toward active, engaged governance.

That ambition carries weight. Solidium’s portfolio includes some of Finland’s most significant companies, such as Nokia, Sampo, Stora Enso, Valmet, Outokumpu, Nokian Tyres, Anora, and ICEYE. Changing how they are owned and guided has implications far beyond individual balance sheets.

Defining full potential

At the core of Solidium’s approach is a simple but demanding question: what is the full potential of each company? 

“Active ownership starts with ambition. We need to define what the full potential of a company really is, and then align everything behind reaching that.”

This is about setting a level of ambition that reflects what the company could achieve under optimal conditions.

Making ownership visible through dialogue

Equally important is the role of continuous dialogue.

“Active ownership is not about occasional intervention. It is about continuous, constructive dialogue — building a shared understanding of direction and targets,” says Rosenberg.

Yet the long-term ambition is not to entrench the ownership indefinitely.

“In the long run, it would be a positive development if the market evolves to a point where Solidium's role could be smaller,” says Rosenberg.

The next phase of the circular economy will depend on market-driven demand and economic viability, which can be supported by EU regulation. Recycled materials must be reliable, traceable, and competitive with virgin inputs. In Finland, circular economy company Remeo Group has undergone a major transformation and invested € 35 million in building one of Europe’s most advanced waste processing and materials recycling facilities. 

The modern processing plant in Vantaa operates at the forefront of Europe in technical capability, innovation, and flexibility, with continuous data collection used to improve processes and enable the sorting of new material types. The facility includes two advanced sorting lines: optical sorting using near-infrared technology to identify plastics and fibers, and AI-controlled robotic sorting for construction waste materials.

For Remeo CEO Panu Routasalo, the pioneering facility in Finland represents something much bigger than a new industrial site. It reflects a shift happening across the entire sector: waste management companies are becoming circular economy companies.

“The goal is simple,” Routasalo says. “We want materials to circulate as efficiently as possible and reduce the need for virgin raw materials.”

But achieving the goal, he argues, requires that the circular economy is truly seen as a great business opportunity across industries. Driving the circular economy business must also be profitable.

From waste logistics to industrial processing

Remeo’s business has changed significantly in recent years.

Traditionally, companies in the sector focused on collecting and transporting waste. But the value of the circular economy lies further down the chain: in sorting, processing, and transforming waste into new raw materials.

Remeo has been steadily expanding its role in that value chain.

“We have invested heavily in processing and sorting capabilities,” Routasalo explains. “Instead of simply moving waste from one place to another, we want to refine materials so they can be used again as recycled raw materials.”

The shift has required both technological investments and operational transformation. But it has also improved the economics of the business. Processing and material recovery, Routasalo says, can be significantly more profitable than traditional waste logistics.

Remeo's materials recovery facility in Vantaa processes plastics. The photo is provided by Remeo, and the photographer is Jussi Hellsten.

The missing piece in the circular economy

Although the importance of the circular economy and material recycling is widely recognized, it has yet to become a mainstream market choice. According to Routasalo, the real bottleneck is not only technology or infrastructure. It is demand.

“The circular economy only works if recycled materials have real economic value,” he says. “There needs to be demand for those materials in the market.”

Without that demand, recycling systems cannot scale efficiently. Materials may be collected and sorted, but if industries are not willing to use recycled inputs, the loop remains incomplete.

That is why Routasalo believes the next phase of the circular economy will focus increasingly on creating markets for recycled materials.

Scaling circular raw materials

One example of this challenge can be seen in plastics.

The amount of plastic waste continues to grow globally, and so has recycling capacity, but demand for recycled plastics has not expanded at the same pace.

Remeo processes large volumes of plastic waste. Technically, the company’s processing capacity could handle up to around 100,000 tons annually, but the broader system still depends on multiple players across the value chain.

Household and industrial recycling also remains uneven.

“In Finland, recycling could be done better,” Routasalo says. “Both households and companies still have room to improve in sorting.”

The issue has broader implications. Finland faces increasing pressure to meet recycling targets, paying penalties of around 90 million euros annually to the EU for non-recycled plastic packaging waste alone. The EU’s 2025 target aimed to recycle 55% of all plastic packaging waste. 

Turning circular economy ideas into practice requires industrial infrastructure and collaboration across the value chain. As a concrete example, Remeo has partnered with Lamor to develop a model for supplying sorted plastic waste as feedstock to Lamor Recycling’s chemical recycling facility in Kilpilahti, Finland. Remeo ensures a steady and traceable supply of plastic waste streams, while Lamor upgrades these materials at its Kilpilahti facility.

The circular economy is only as strong as its value chain

For Routasalo, the future of the circular economy depends on a strong, well-functioning end-to-end value chain that creates value for all stakeholders.

Collection, sorting, processing, and end use must function as a connected system.

“You cannot push the circular economy forward with good intentions alone,” he says. “All the pieces of the value chain have to work together.”

That includes creating solutions where recycled raw materials are attractive for industrial buyers and manufacturers.

“If recycled raw materials can compete economically with virgin materials, the market will naturally grow.”

The next phase for Remeo

Over the next two to five years, Routasalo envisions Remeo positioning itself higher in the industrial value chain, focusing on supporting decision-making that maximizes the use of recycled raw materials. 

Rather than processing waste, Remeo aims to deliver the recycled materials of the future, enabling industries to integrate them effectively into their operations.
That goal sits at the heart of the circular economy.

But as Routasalo emphasizes, it will only succeed if environmental impact and economic value move in the same direction.

“The circular economy cannot be driven by regulation alone,” he says. “It has to make business sense as well.”