Executive Summary

Digital sovereignty has become a central competitive factor for companies in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. However, a current Lünendonk study reveals a dramatic implementation deficit: While 93 percent of surveyed IT and C-level executives acknowledge its relevance, only 14 percent have an exit strategy for rapid provider switching. Complex legacy systems and lacking open-source expertise significantly hinder practical implementation.

People

  • Mike Faust (Author/Golem)

Topics

  • Cloud dependencies
  • Exit strategies
  • Legacy systems
  • Open-source software
  • European cloud alternatives

Clarus Lead

Companies now view digital sovereignty as a strategic business risk – not as an ideological concept. The goal is not autarky, but conscious management of dependencies to secure operational capability. The data basis is reliable: 155 telephone interviews with IT directors and security officers between December 2025 and January 2026. However, a significant action gap becomes apparent during implementation, directly challenging decision-makers.

Detailed Summary

The perception of digital sovereignty has risen dramatically. 93 percent of respondents attest high relevance to the topic, 96 percent expect it to increase over the next three years. Companies cite the reduction of excessive dependencies, strengthened crisis resilience, and regulatory requirements as main drivers. Particularly noteworthy: 83 percent see a realistic risk from potential shutdown of digital services by foreign states – a geopolitical scenario that endangers immediate business continuity.

However, the reality is this: Only 14 percent have a functional exit strategy. Main obstacles are complex legacy systems (65 percent), massive dependence on proprietary software (87 percent), and lacking internal expertise. Open-source software is recognized as a solution by 90 percent, yet expertise for sustainable implementation is lacking. European cloud alternatives to US hyperscalers are considered functionally inferior – only 31 percent see them as competitive.

Key Statements

  • Awareness present, implementation lacking: 93 percent relevance confirmation vs. 14 percent functioning exit strategies
  • Technical complexity blocks sovereignty: Legacy systems and proprietary dependencies prevent rapid provider switching
  • Open-source as recognized, unused potential: 90 percent see opportunities, yet lacking in-house expertise hinders implementation
  • Geopolitical risks as action motivator: 83 percent fear state blocking of digital services

Critical Questions

  1. How validated is the sample? 155 interviews are acceptable for an industry overview, but the industry affiliation, company size, and geographic distribution of respondents are not disclosed – to what extent do these results represent the overall market?

  2. Are conflicts of interest of the analysis company Lünendonk disclosed? Does Lünendonk itself offer consulting services on digital sovereignty that generate demand through alarmist findings?

  3. Causality or correlation? The study shows correlation between risk awareness and missing exit strategies – but are legacy systems really the blocking motive, or did respondents rationalize a conscious cost-benefit decision?

  4. What is a realistic exit strategy? The standard of "rapid switching" is factually unrealistic for complex production environments – is an unattainable benchmark being applied here?

  5. Are European alternatives technically inferior or economically unattractive? The 31 percent figure could reflect marketing deficits, higher costs, or actual functional gaps – no differentiation is made.

  6. What cost-benefit analysis justifies inaction? Companies with 87 percent proprietary applications consciously pay a dependency premium – how is this economic rationality considered in the study's evaluation?

Source Directory

Primary Source: Digital Sovereignty: Many Companies Have No Cloud Exit Strategy – Golem.de, 23.03.2026 (Mike Faust)

Verification Status: ✓ 23.03.2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-Check: 23.03.2026