In a world where technology and geopolitics are colliding with increasing force, the concept of “digital sovereignty” has shifted from a niche compliance topic to a critical boardroom discussion. For CIOs, the challenge is no longer just about where data resides, but about maintaining control over the entire technology stack amidst escalating global tensions and a web of conflicting regulations. To navigate this complex landscape, we spoke with Maryanne Baines, a leading authority on cloud technology and its intersection with global enterprise strategy. She offers a clear-eyed perspective on the practical realities of achieving strategic autonomy, balancing costs with security, and mitigating the “known unknowns” that now define the IT environment.
The discussion often separates data sovereignty from the broader concept of digital sovereignty. Could you explain this distinction and outline the practical implications for a CIO when control over the entire tech stack—from chips to AI models—becomes a primary concern?
That’s the perfect place to start, as this distinction is at the heart of the entire challenge. Data sovereignty, which many organizations in Europe are familiar with thanks to GDPR, is about where your data physically sits and who has legal jurisdiction over it. It’s a critical, but comparatively narrow, concern. Digital sovereignty is far more expansive and frankly, more daunting. It’s about having meaningful control over your entire technology stack. We’re talking about everything from the cloud infrastructure and operating systems you run on, all the way down to the chips in your servers, the telecom networks you use, and now, the very AI models that are becoming foundational to business. You can achieve data sovereignty without having digital sovereignty, but you absolutely cannot have the latter without the former. For a CIO, this means the risk isn’t just a foreign government demanding access to a database; it’s the possibility of being cut off from your core infrastructure, software, or AI capabilities because of a geopolitical maneuver, turning what was once an efficiency gain from single-vendor dependency into a severe national security risk.
Enterprises face conflicting regulations, such as the US CLOUD Act allowing overseas data access and strict EU privacy rules. How should a multinational CIO navigate this landscape? Please detail the first few steps they should take to map out and mitigate these jurisdictional risks.
This regulatory conflict is precisely where the pressure becomes most acute for a multinational CIO. You have the US CLOUD Act, which can compel a US-based vendor to hand over data regardless of where it’s stored, directly clashing with the EU’s strict privacy and data residency requirements. The first step is to stop treating this as a simple IT compliance task and recognize it as a fundamental business risk. You need to conduct a thorough mapping exercise. Start by identifying your most critical data and systems—not everything is equally sensitive. Once you know what truly matters, map where that data is stored, processed, and who has access to it, paying excruciatingly close attention to the nationality of your vendors. The third step is a risk assessment based on that map. Ask the tough questions: What happens if our primary cloud provider is compelled by their government to act against our interests? What if a political dispute disrupts access to our SaaS platforms? This process forces you to move beyond abstract fears and start building a concrete plan for physical and logical separation of key assets, potentially using vendor-independent clouds for your most sensitive workloads.
We’re seeing that sovereign cloud alternatives can often cost 15-30% more. How can a technology leader make a compelling business case for this added expense? What metrics or risk scenarios can they present to the board to justify the investment in greater strategic autonomy?
The cost argument is the biggest hurdle, and you must frame it not as an IT expense, but as a strategic investment in business resilience. A 15-30% premium sounds high until you compare it to the cost of a complete operational shutdown. When you’re in the boardroom, you can’t just talk about compliance; you need to paint a vivid picture of the risks. Present clear scenarios: “What is the financial and reputational impact if a trade dispute prevents us from accessing our CRM data for a week? What if a ‘kill switch’ in foreign-managed infrastructure disables a critical operational system?” You can quantify the potential losses from downtime, regulatory fines for non-compliance with rules like GDPR, and the long-term damage to customer trust. The justification isn’t about buying a more expensive server; it’s about purchasing insurance against geopolitical shocks and ensuring the company has the strategic autonomy to operate no matter what happens on the world stage. It’s a shift from a cost-centric to a risk-centric conversation.
Since complete technology sovereignty is likely unachievable for most, could you explain how an organization might implement a “minimum viable sovereignty” strategy? Please walk us through the process of deciding which specific workloads require sovereign infrastructure and which do not.
That’s a very pragmatic way to put it, because for almost any commercial organization, full technology sovereignty—controlling everything down to the chip foundries and rare earth minerals—is a fantasy. The concept of “minimum viable sovereignty” is the only realistic path forward. The process begins with a rigorous triage of your workloads. Not every application or piece of data carries the same level of risk or strategic importance. You need to categorize your systems: Is this a public-facing marketing website, or is it the intellectual property for our next-generation product? Is this non-sensitive operational data, or is it a citizen database subject to strict national laws? Once you have that clear segmentation, you can map the high-risk, high-value workloads to sovereign solutions. This could mean hosting them with a local cloud provider, on-premises, or in a specific sovereign region offered by a hyperscaler. The key is to avoid overengineering. Applying the highest level of sovereignty to every workload is not only costly but also incredibly inefficient. This targeted approach allows you to secure what matters most while still leveraging the cost and innovation benefits of global cloud platforms for less sensitive operations.
Hyperscalers are now offering sovereign regions, and some companies are turning to open-source software. What are the key trade-offs and hidden risks an enterprise should consider when evaluating these options as a path to reducing single-vendor dependency?
These are two of the most common responses we’re seeing, and both come with significant trade-offs. The hyperscalers—AWS, Google, Microsoft—have responded by launching sovereign cloud regions in Europe, which is a positive step. However, you must read the fine print. Does this offering provide true jurisdictional and operational separation, or is it still ultimately under the control of a US-based parent company subject to the CLOUD Act? The technology might be less advanced than in their primary regions, and you are still deepening your dependency on that single vendor’s ecosystem. On the other hand, open source seems like a perfect solution for autonomy, but it’s no silver bullet. You have to investigate the provenance and maintenance of the software. Going for an open-source project doesn’t solve your sovereignty problem if you discover its sole, indispensable maintainer is based in a politically volatile region. The hidden risk is that you may be trading a very visible dependency on a large corporation for a fragile, invisible dependency on a single individual or a small group in a country that could become a geopolitical adversary overnight.
What is your forecast for digital sovereignty?
My forecast is that the need for digital sovereignty is rapidly moving from being a “known unknown,” as Donald Rumsfeld would say, to a “known known.” For years, it was a risk we knew existed but couldn’t quite define or prioritize. Now, it’s becoming a concrete, unavoidable factor in strategic planning. We will see a permanent shift away from the “one cloud fits all” mentality toward a more fragmented, multi-provider, hybrid world. Enterprises will be forced to become far more sophisticated in how they procure and manage technology, balancing the incredible innovation of global platforms with the resilient control offered by local or sovereign alternatives. This isn’t a temporary trend; it’s the new, complex reality of running a global business in an increasingly fractured world. The ability to navigate this landscape will become a key competitive differentiator.
