Despite prioritizing encryption and EU data hosting, European organizations still rely on US platforms like Microsoft Teams. Explore the four key barriers to digital sovereignty, from vendor lock-in to integration friction, and how to overcome them.
European organizations want to adopt sovereign digital tools. Tools built in the EU, aligned with data protection regulations, and designed for transparency. But the reality is more complex.
Our recent EU Sovereignty survey of 273 decision-makers across IT, compliance, and public sector roles shows a clear paradox:
This article explores why intent isn't translating into action and what’s needed to close the sovereignty gap.
When asked to rank key criteria for evaluating communication platforms, respondents were clear:
These preferences align with the foundational principles of digital sovereignty: data protection, transparency, and autonomy.
But the actual tools in use tell a different story. Despite the strong alignment around security and sovereignty, most respondents still rely on U.S.-based platforms. Teams, Zoom, and Slack are widely used, even though they fall short on core criteria like jurisdictional control and verifiable encryption.
This disconnect isn’t about a lack of concern. It reflects real, persistent barriers that stop organizations from switching.
Comfort, routine, and inertia are among the most underestimated forces in digital transformation. Even when CISOs or data protection officers flag urgent compliance risks, the perception among everyday users is often: “Why fix what isn’t broken?”
In practice, new tools face skepticism not because of their security credentials, but because of change fatigue and perceived complexity. This resistance is especially acute in large organizations where workflows are deeply embedded and new tools are viewed as productivity disruptors. For frontline workers or non-technical staff, even a minor shift in UX can create friction.
Moreover, modern platforms like Teams and Slack have normalized a culture of convenience over caution. Features like persistent presence, emoji reactions, or threaded chats become daily habits and any change, no matter how secure or sovereign, must compete against that comfort. Without extensive onboarding, change management, and internal champions, even the most compelling tools will struggle to reach critical mass.
Digital ecosystems are complex webs, not isolated apps. Tools like Teams and Zoom are deeply integrated into the enterprise stack: Outlook calendars, Active Directory, SharePoint, Jira, and even HR systems. Replacing one component often triggers a cascade of compatibility challenges.
This integration depth gives incumbents a major advantage. Microsoft’s strength, for instance, lies not just in Teams, but in how Teams knows your calendar, auto-authenticates across apps, and embeds directly into existing workflows. For many EU-native tools, replicating this seamlessness is a work in progress.
What begins as a technical hurdle often turns into political risk. Organizations avoid risk, and perceived fragility in integrations can halt promising alternatives before they’re even tested. Sovereign platforms must prove that they don’t just exist, they coexist, without adding friction to daily operations.
Visibility is power. And EU-native tools, no matter how innovative or secure, still struggle with discoverability. In many cases, decision-makers default to U.S. platforms not because they’re better but because they’re known. Brand recognition, market presence, and aggressive enterprise sales create a gravitational pull that’s hard to resist.
Meanwhile, sovereign tools often operate with limited marketing budgets, fragmented ecosystems, and minimal media coverage. Even well-established platforms that meet all the right compliance and encryption criteria get dismissed as “niche” or “not enterprise-ready.”
This creates a vicious cycle:
Until EU-based alternatives become default options, not obscure ones, the sovereignty gap will persist, not due to product flaws but visibility voids.
Even the most motivated organizations often find themselves trapped. The mechanics of vendor lock-in are subtle but powerful:
Switching doesn’t just involve a financial cost, it risks operational continuity. That’s especially daunting in critical sectors like public administration, healthcare, or utilities, where downtime or disruption has real-world consequences.
“It’s not about willingness. It’s about feasibility. We’d switch, but we can’t afford to break what’s working today,” one IT lead shared.
True sovereignty requires not just better tools, but better exit paths: procurement standards that favor portability, funding for migration support, and regulatory pressure on incumbents to open up interoperability.
-1.png?width=1200&height=628&name=EU%20sovereignty%20report%20(1)-1.png)
Most respondents in our survey share a common intent: reduce reliance on foreign vendors and adopt tools that reflect EU values and regulatory frameworks. But strong intent doesn’t equal successful adoption.
To accelerate progress on sovereignty, organizations need more than policy signals. They need:
The issue isn’t a lack of will, it’s a lack of practical support to turn values into action. If Europe truly wants to close the sovereignty gap, it must do more than regulate. It must invest in visibility, integration, and switching infrastructure to make sovereignty feasible, not just aspirational.
Canada’s proposed Bill C-2 quietly introduces one of the most far-reaching digital surveillance regimes in the democratic world. Disguised as a...
When WeTransfer quietly expanded its terms of service to allow AI model training on user-uploaded files, public backlash was swift and fierce. Within...
Explore how Europe’s digital sovereignty is undermined by Big Tech, encryption backdoors, and chat control. Insights from Tuta’s Hanna Bozakov on...
Discover in a quick call how Wire enables secure, compliant, and seamless collaboration for your organization, without compromising on usability or control.