3 Steps to Greater Digital Sovereignty

Digital sovereignty is not a stance or a strategic paper. It is the result of concrete technical decisions. Those who operate software inevitably decide in which legal jurisdiction data resides, who effectively has access, and how easily or difficult dependencies can be dissolved later. These decisions often have long-lasting effects, regardless of whether they were made consciously or not.

This post describes three steps companies can take to practically implement digital sovereignty. The focus is not on promises, but on verifiable characteristics of architecture, operations, and processes.

Step 1: Design data storage and operations to keep control within the EU

The question of whether data is “stored in the USA” is often misunderstood. The physical location is only part of the equation. What matters is who legally and technically controls the infrastructure, operations, and keys.

US legal frameworks like the CLOUD Act do not solely depend on the location of the data but on the control exercised by certain providers. This means that if a company uses services subject to US law, access obligations may arise—even if data is formally located in a European region. Since the Schrems II ruling by the CJEU, it is clear that such arrangements can no longer be generally considered data protection compliant. International data transfers must now be actively assessed and technically secured. The European Data Protection Board explicitly requires additional measures and a real risk assessment—not just contracts.

In practice, this means: To retain control, data storage, operations, and key management must be considered together. Production data, backups, and operational data like logs or metrics should be processed within the EU. Equally important is that administrative access, support processes, and incident response do not occur outside this legal jurisdiction. Encryption is only effective if the keys are not held by the same provider who could be compelled to release them.

This is where architecture becomes crucial. Kubernetes is not just a buzzword here but a technical lever. It acts as an abstraction layer between application and infrastructure. Applications are not built for a specific cloud service but described as standardized Container workloads. Deployments, configurations, and policies are declarative and reproducible. This creates portability—not theoretically, but practically.

When workloads run on Kubernetes, they can be operated on different European cloud providers or on-premises without needing to redesign applications. Proprietary PaaS services, which are convenient but tie you to a provider, can be consciously avoided. Exit capability thus becomes an architectural feature, not a project with an uncertain outcome.

ayedo uses precisely this principle. Kubernetes serves as a unified operational platform, regardless of whether the underlying infrastructure is with a European hyperscaler, a regional provider, or in-house. What matters is not the “Managed Kubernetes” label but a consistent operational model: standardized deployments, comprehensive observability, documented restart and exit scenarios, and operations fully anchored in the EU. This turns cloud usage into a controllable technical decision, not a long-term dependency.

Step 2: Decouple collaboration from proprietary suites – Nextcloud instead of Microsoft 365

Collaboration tools are deeply integrated into daily work life. That’s why they are strategically relevant. Microsoft 365 bundles identity, file storage, communication, office applications, and Compliance functions in a tightly integrated suite. Functionally strong, but technically highly coupled—and this coupling complicates control and exit.

Digital sovereignty rarely fails due to individual features but rather the overall construction. Data, metadata, and usage information reside on a platform whose operation and development are entirely outside one’s control. A later switch is possible but costly, time-consuming, and operationally risky.

Nextcloud takes a different approach. It is not a single tool but a collaboration platform that brings together file management, sharing, groupware, office integration, communication, and simple workflows. The crucial difference lies in the operation: Nextcloud can be run on one’s infrastructure or with European providers. Data storage, access control, and integrations remain manageable.

In practice, a step-by-step approach proves effective. Often, the replacement of proprietary suites begins with file storage and sharing, as dependencies are particularly visible here. Calendars, contacts, and office functions follow where they make organizational sense. The focus is less on feature completeness and more on clean operations. Especially with stateful applications like Nextcloud, the quality of storage concepts, backups, update strategies, and monitoring determines whether the platform remains stable in the long term.

If a [Kubernetes] platform already exists, Nextcloud can be operated there. It’s not a must, but an advantage because existing operational processes can be reused. What matters is that data, databases, and caches are clearly separated, updates run reproducibly, and recoveries are regularly tested. Open Source alone does not create sovereignty—only controlled operations make it real.

The gain is not in ideology but in the ability to act. Companies retain control over their data, reduce legal vulnerabilities, and can adapt collaboration to their own processes instead of submitting to a suite logic.

Step 3: Build reach without surrendering to platforms

Communication is also infrastructure. Building reach solely through individual social media platforms implicitly accepts their rules, algorithms, and business models. This is convenient in the short term but risky in the long term.

A sovereign approach does not mean avoiding platforms but using them consciously in parallel. Content is created centrally but distributed across multiple channels. In the B2B environment, this can also mean engaging additional platforms like Xing—not out of nostalgia but for risk diversification.

The real anchor point should be an own channel. RSS plays an underrated role here. As an open standard, it allows content to be provided in a structured way, independent of platforms or algorithms. RSS feeds can be directly integrated into newsletter systems, used for content syndication, or processed internally. The blog thus becomes the primary source, not an appendage of social media.

In this model, the newsletter is not a marketing add-on but a controlled communication channel. Subscriber data is one’s responsibility, consents are clearly regulated, and content can be segmented thematically. Unlike social media, reach here is not rented but built.

Conclusion

Digital sovereignty results from structure, not intent. It arises where data storage, operations, collaboration, and communication are designed so that control, portability, and exit capability remain technically possible.

Kubernetes provides the foundation for provider-independent operations. European-anchored operational models reduce legal risks. Open-source platforms like Nextcloud resolve structural dependencies in collaboration. And own communication channels ensure that reach is not entirely dependent on third parties.

This is not a vision. This is architecture.