Diversity and equality in work communities enrich working life and enable companies to grow and innovate. Many employers have undertaken to promote equality, which is after all their legal responsibility. However, legislation also limits how employers can go about this, as they cannot collect whatever data they want concerning their employees.
15.2.2023
Do we need data to promote diversity and equality?
Eija Warma-Lehtinen & Outi Tähtinen
Related services
Tags
The Non-discrimination Act obligates employers of all sizes to promote equality in the workplace. For example, employers must develop their methods of choosing employees and ways of making decisions that concern employees. The measures taken to promote equality must be effective, appropriate and proportionate.
As all development efforts, promoting diversity and equality must be based on information. In order to improve the rights of a particular group, the employer needs to know how many people in the work community belong to this group and how they feel their rights are being realised. However, these good intentions may be in conflict with data protection legislation.
In Finland, the processing of personal data is regulated in particular by the EU’s GDPR, the Finnish Data Protection Act and the Act on the Protection of Privacy in Working Life which require that there are appropriate grounds for collecting personal data. The employer may only collect data that is necessary for the employment relationship or if an obligation to collect data is specifically provided for in law. An obligation that is general in nature – promoting equality, for example – does not, as such, give employers more powers as regards collecting data.
Moreover, data that is important with respect to equality is often sensitive personal data, i.e. special categories of personal data which are strictly protected by the law. For example, processing data on a person’s health, origin or sexual orientation is generally prohibited. This applies even if the employee consents to the processing of the data.
Nevertheless, information on diversity in the work community would help the employer plan effective and appropriate measures to promote equality. Untargeted measures may be ineffective: while they might help some people, they are not specifically targeted at any particular group.
Anonymous data can be collected, but anonymity depends on the work community
Data protection laws do not apply to anonymous data, but that does not mean that an employer can ask their employees to anonymously answer any and all questions in order to promote equality.
Anonymising data does not mean hiding the names of individuals but presenting the data in a manner by which the individuals cannot be identified. Nameless data is not anonymous if it defines the object too narrowly. For example, ‘male, aged 50–55, native language other than Finnish’ might be sufficient to identify the employee in some work communities. Even keeping score of employee groups on paper might be too specific.
Statistics are typically anonymous. The law does not determine the minimum number of observations, but a general rule of thumb, which is not based on regulation, is five observations or units of data. For example, team-specific results are often not reported in personnel surveys if the team consists of fewer than five employees.
Therefore, the possibilities for data collection depend on the work community and the aspect under examination. In a larger organisation, it may be possible to collect statistics on various aspects of diversity. Even in work communities of a few dozen people there are enough persons identifying as men and women to collect anonymous data based on gender.
Building trust is always worth it
While data collecting is very restricted, often the most important factor of promoting equality is an atmosphere of openness and trust. Employees should feel that they are welcome and valued regardless of whether or not their characteristics position them as members of the majority. Such an atmosphere also fosters better results and is therefore a positive driver for the employer’s business as well.
Latest insights
Article published 3.3.2026 – Employment
The threshold for dismissal is lowered: what should be taken into account in practice?
Article published 6.5.2024 – Employment
Outsourcing company functions – four key points for success
Article published 15.3.2024 – Employment
Five questions concerning industrial actions
Article published 29.11.2023 – Employment
Whistleblowing and data protection – frequently asked questions
Aleksandra Särkelä
Tomi Kemppainen, Kim Parviainen & Eija Warma-Lehtinen
Mikko Hanni & Outi Tähtinen
Eija Warma-Lehtinen & Ville Kukkonen
Latest references
Aurevia and Labquality – Strategic reorganisation
We advised Aurevia Oy, a portfolio company of French private equity sponsor Mérieux Equity Partners, in a strategic reorganisation that involved splitting Aurevia and its parent companies into two independent groups of companies and reorganisation of its existing debt-financing arrangements. Following the reorganisation, the newly formed Aurevia continues as a leading provider of Contract Research Organization (CRO) and Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs (QARA) services, while the newly formed Labquality focuses on delivering External Quality Assessment (EQA) services. Aurevia serves operators in the medical devices, in vitro diagnostics and pharmaceutical sectors. Labquality’s customers include clinical laboratories and social and healthcare organisations. The reorganisation positions Aurevia and Labquality to allocate investments more effectively, accelerate growth within their respective customer segments, and respond to evolving market and client needs. The transaction was implemented through multiple parallel demergers and required comprehensive legal and tax structuring across several jurisdictions. Our team supported Aurevia throughout the planning and implementation phases, covering corporate, tax, employment law, and regulatory matters, as well as the optimisation of each group’s financing structure.
Case published 7.4.2026
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
Life Finland – Administration of bankruptcy estate
Life Finland Oy, a retailer of natural products, other health-related products and cosmetics, filed for bankruptcy on its own initiative in June 2025, and our attorney, counsel Elina Pesonen was appointed administrator of the bankruptcy estate. Life Finland Oy was part of the international Life Group, and its parent company Life Europe AB was declared bankrupt in Sweden in June 2025. When declared bankrupt, Life Finland Oy had over 30 operational stores and almost 170 employees across Finland. In addition to the premises of the operational stores, the company had several other leased premises, such as retail premises it was vacating as well as office and warehouse spaces. The bankruptcy estate organised clearance sales in all of the company’s stores. The shutdown of the stores and the clearance sales were efficiently carried out in approximately two weeks in cooperation with the company’s country manager, regional managers and sales staff. The clearance sales yielded a significant liquidation result, and consumers bought nearly the entire inventory. The administration of the bankruptcy estate has required expertise in many areas. The proceedings have dealt with specialised issues such as cash pooling arrangements, intellectual property, franchising agreements, employment relationships and consumer creditors. In addition, the proceedings are notably international, as the estate administrator has organised the shutdown of operations and the liquidation of assets in close cooperation with the estate administrators of the Swedish Group companies. The cooperation has included, among other things, exploring opportunities for selling the business, the sale of intangible rights and the coordination of intra-group agreements.
Case published 9.12.2025
Merger of Oomi and Lumme Energia
We are acting as the joint legal advisor to Oomi Oy and Lumme Energia Oy in a transaction whereby Lumme Energia will merge with Oomi. As from the completion of the merger, the combined entity will be the largest electricity retail and service company in the Finnish market. In 2024, Oomi reported a turnover of EUR 373.9 million and had approximately 110 employees. Lumme Energia’s turnover for the same year was approximately EUR 314.6 million and it had approximately 50 employees. The transaction is primarily driven by the recent developments in the electricity market and the strategic goal to develop competitive products and services. Another key objective is to further enhance the customer experience, which is a shared value between the two companies. As a result of the merger, Lumme Energia’s customers will transfer to Oomi, and Lumme Energia will become one of Oomi’s shareholders. The completion of the transaction is subject to an approval by the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority.
Case published 29.8.2025