Sovereignty you can
Leadership teams and executives are asking a fundamental question:
“How can our organization reduce risks and vulnerabilities to become more resilient?”
Digital sovereignty has emerged as a leadership issue not because of regulation alone, but because the assumptions that once underpinned digital transformation no longer hold.
Geopolitical and supply‑chain shocks are increasing. AI is accelerating faster than governance models can adapt, and critical digital services increasingly span platforms, data, operations and suppliers in ways that obscure where responsibility and risks truly sit.
How can you maintain control, create resilience and make informed and proportionate choices in a more volatile operating environment?
The challenge we set ourselves was to answer the following question: “How do you turn sovereignty into something that you understand and action?“ A Sovereignty Posture represents an organization’s current state of control, transparency and autonomy across three critical dimensions – data sovereignty, technical sovereignty and operational sovereignty. Knowing and improving your Sovereignty Posture is key in volatile times. It brings the added benefit of improved resilience, as well as end-customer confidence that you are protecting their data.
Click to explore the eight sovereignty dimensions
Overview
With US cloud providers’ increasing domination of the European market, the ability to achieve legal and jurisdictional sovereignty is one of the most complex pillars of Europe’s digital sovereignty agenda. Synergy Research Europe estimates that US cloud providers now hold 85% of the cloud market in Europe and that this has grown steadily over the last eight years.
Achieving sovereignty against this backdrop requires a considered strategy that ensures organizational continuity and growth while strengthening sovereignty posture where feasible, both economically and functionally. A tightly constrained legal requirement may restrict access to technologies your organization depends on, and which may not be reasonably replicable within a local jurisdiction.
Key Considerations
The concept of legal and jurisdictional sovereignty is to provide clarity both on where digital services are delivered, and which legal systems can assert authority over data, infrastructure, and service providers. In an increasingly interconnected supply chain, sovereignty is rarely absolute.
The European region’s dependence on US technology firms is not limited to hardware, software, security communications and services. In addition, almost half of the European ICT workforce comes from US ICT sectors and any disruption in this market creates a downstream economic headwind.
With the European technology market forecast to continue growth, and a growing shift to sovereign cloud solutions, a clear perspective on this aspect of sovereignty is critical. IDC advises that 31% of organizations in Europe already use a sovereign cloud service and 50% of organizations are planning to within the coming 12 months, signaling a strategic shift of cloud workloads to alternative platforms.
Moving to alternative platforms has more than technological, performance and feasibility considerations. European organizations depend heavily on third-party technologies and services, and those solutions are often governed by laws outside the European region. This introduces exposure to extra-territorial legislation such as the US CLOUD Act and FISA, China’s evolving cybersecurity, data security and personal information laws, and other countries’ legislation. These laws may apply regardless of where data is physically stored, creating legal uncertainty that cannot be mitigated through technical controls alone.
It is neither realistic nor enforceable to prescribe a 100% sovereign or zero-risk sovereignty posture. Third parties are bound by the legal requirements of their headquarter jurisdiction, as well as extended-jurisdictional requirements. There is complexity, legislation is not always aligned, and balancing risk is a key consideration.
Practical Perspective
Legal and jurisdictional sovereignty should be approached as an exercise in risk transparency and proportional control. This means understanding where legal exposure exists, assessing its materiality, and making informed design, contracting, and operating choices within European regulatory frameworks. Sovereignty, in practice, is about informed governance, not legal absolutes.
It is not realistic to prescribe a 100% sovereign or zero-risk posture, and organizations should recognize that third-party suppliers remain bound by the legal requirements of their own jurisdictions. Non-negotiable legal obligations may therefore limit what can be achieved and require compromise.
Organizations should seek specialized legal advice in relation to key suppliers and dependencies.
Important Notice
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by use of this material or by any communication through it. The information may not reflect the most current legal developments and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct, or up to date. Organizations should not act on any information contained here without first consulting a licensed legal representative within their jurisdiction who can evaluate their specific circumstances. All liability for actions taken or not taken based on the content of this article is expressly disclaimed.
The challenge
Strategic sovereignty evaluates whether technology providers are anchored in the European Union’s legal, financial, and industrial ecosystem, and where control and influence sit.
Organizations depend on a small number of global suppliers. Control is not defined by where services are delivered, but by who owns, governs, and influences providers, and where decisive authority sits.
This creates strategic risk in a dynamic geopolitical environment. Suppliers may face non-EU political or economic influence, ownership change, or external decisions that restrict, suspend, or reshape services.
Europe’s dependence on non-European providers further limits the sovereignty organizations can realistically achieve.
Organizations must therefore assess supplier dependencies and long-term resilience, including whether operations can continue if key suppliers are disrupted, withdrawn, or externally compelled to change service delivery.
Fujitsu’s response
Fujitsu approaches strategic sovereignty as a Cx-level decision-making discipline, enabling leaders to maintain control, resilience, and strategic autonomy in the face of evolving risks.
Through Digital Sovereignty Advisory Services, organizations assess and define their sovereignty posture, combining the eight dimensions of sovereignty with structured risk methodologies to evaluate exposure and define what is achievable based on business and technology drivers.
This establishes a foundation for action, including ownership of sovereignty, visibility of strategic suppliers, and alignment with investment decisions, in-flight programmes, and resilience and continuity planning.
Supplier dependencies are analyzed, including ownership structures, jurisdictional alignment, exposure to non-EU influence, and long-term commitment to the European market.
A quantified, evidence-based view of sovereignty risk is provided, including expected cost, time, and prioritization, enabling alignment with business objectives and investment planning.
Delivery is supported through hybrid and multi-cloud architecture, sovereign and EU-based cloud integration, customer-controlled encryption and key management, and operational resilience and exit planning.
A curated partner ecosystem supports implementation, including European cloud providers (e.g. OVHcloud, StackIT), hyperscalers with sovereign offerings, security and encryption partners (e.g. Thales), and open-source and European technology providers.
A neutral, technology-agnostic approach is maintained, based on due diligence across all sovereignty dimensions, supported by analyst insights (e.g. Gartner, IDC, Forrester).
The outcome
Organizations gain a quantified, evidence-based view of their strategic sovereignty posture, including where control over critical suppliers sits across ownership, governance, and jurisdiction.
This provides visibility into supplier dependencies, jurisdictional alignment, exposure to non-EU influence, and long-term commitment to the European market, including investment, jobs, and value creation.
With this, organizations can make prioritized decisions on supplier strategy, including whether to retain, replace, or diversify key suppliers, and how to respond to ownership change, external influence, or service disruption.
Decisions are aligned to expected cost, time, and prioritization, enabling sovereignty improvements to be planned alongside business and investment objectives.
As a result, organizations can maintain continuity of operations under supplier constraint or external compulsion, while preserving strategic flexibility in a market defined by dependency on non-European providers.
The challenge
Data and AI Sovereignty is often misunderstood as a question of where data is stored, such as keeping it within Europe. In reality, it is about control across the full lifecycle of data and AI.
Data is constantly moving, replicated, and transformed into new assets. Sovereignty can be weakened at any point if organizations lose visibility and control over access, reuse, or transformation, even when data remains within the EU.
AI adds further complexity; models, integrations, and outputs can persist beyond the original data, potentially containing sensitive information, encoding operational logic or influencing decisions. These AI artefacts can’t always be reversed or “unlearned”, meaning data controls alone are not sufficient.
Sovereignty must also endure over time. As regulation, technology, and geopolitics evolve, organizations need to retain control and the ability to adapt, rather than rely on static approaches.
Fujitsu’s response
Fujitsu approaches Data and AI Sovereignty as a continuous and ongoing discipline of control, lifecycle governance and customer autonomy, not just data residency.
Through our Digital Sovereignty Advisory Services, Fujitsu helps organizations measure sovereignty in practice, including where data and AI are processed, who has access and controls encryption keys, and how AI systems and outputs are governed.
Addressing the full lifecycle of data and AI, from access and usage through to model training, deployment, and outputs, ensures sovereignty is maintained in use as well as at rest.
Flexibility and a technology-agnostic design support sovereign, hybrid, and multi-cloud environments, avoiding lock-in while enabling portability and preserving customer choice.
This is supported by a pragmatic approach, helping organizations prioritize where sovereignty matters most, while balancing control with performance, cost, and innovation.
Data and AI Sovereignty is achieved by control, not only location. It is a lifecycle-wide, control-centric model where organizations retain continuous authority over who can access, transform, reuse and decrypt data.
The outcome
Organizations gain demonstrable control over both data and AI, building trust at scale.
This enables them to control access, processing, and AI behavior across the lifecycle, govern AI systems in line with European legal and ethical expectations, manage AI artefacts alongside the underlying data, and reduce dependency on opaque or non-EU-controlled services.
As a result, organizations can maintain portability, reversibility, and independence, including the ability to migrate, isolate, or remove data and AI workloads over time, enabling trusted and scalable innovation.
The challenge
Operational Sovereignty is the practical ability to run, support, and evolve technology independently of foreign control, focusing on continuity of operations, skill availability, and resilience to external dependency.
Organizations can meet data residency and compliance requirements yet remain operationally dependent. In many environments, operational responsibility shifts to vendors through managed services, proprietary tooling, and centralized control planes, leaving organizations with oversight but not control.
This dependency is not only technical. Over time, operational knowledge moves with the vendor. Key configuration decisions are made externally, processes become undocumented or embedded in tooling, and internal teams act as coordinators rather than operators. When the knowledge required to run systems sits outside the organization or outside EU jurisdiction, control is effectively lost.
Operational Sovereignty is also tested under disruption. Most resilience strategies assume vendor cooperation, but the critical question is whether systems can continue to operate if support is constrained, withdrawn, or unavailable due to geopolitical, regulatory, or commercial factors.
Fujitsu’s response
Fujitsu approaches Operational Sovereignty as a practical discipline of control, continuity, and capability, focused on ensuring organizations retain the ability to act independently when it matters.
Through Fujitsu’s Digital Sovereignty Advisory Services, organizations assess where operational control genuinely sits by mapping who performs critical tasks, where knowledge resides, and which processes depend on vendor intervention or tooling.
This assessment is structured across three domains: 1) operational process ownership, 2) skills and knowledge residency, and 3) continuity of independence. It evaluates whether processes are owned and executable by the organization, whether critical expertise is accessible within EU jurisdiction, and whether operations can continue without vendor cooperation.
Building on this, Fujitsu helps organizations identify where operational knowledge should be made more explicit, documented, and transferable, and where EU-based capability could reduce reliance on vendor-held expertise.
The goal is to enable customer autonomy in practice, including customer-controlled tooling and pipelines, clear ownership of operational processes, and the ability to execute critical actions without vendor involvement.
Continuity is addressed through vendor-agnostic architecture recommendations, EU-based fallback operational capabilities, and defined and tested exit and transition plans, ensuring operations can continue even when vendor relationships are constrained or unavailable.
A pragmatic approach is applied, focusing on understanding, controlling, and reducing dependency where it matters most, rather than attempting to eliminate it entirely.
The outcome
Organizations gain the practical ability to run, support, and evolve their technology independently, with access to the tools, knowledge, and permissions required to operate without external reliance.
This enables operational processes to be executed directly, including changes, updates, and incident response, without vendor authorization. While ensuring critical knowledge is documented, transferable, and retained within EU-based teams.
As a result, organizations can maintain continuity of operations even when vendor support is constrained or unavailable, retaining the ability to act, adapt, and evolve systems under conditions of disruption or external pressure.
The challenge
Supply Chain Sovereignty evaluates the origin, production, delivery, transparency, and resilience of the technology supply chain, and the extent to which critical components and processes remain under EU control, or are exposed to non-EU dependencies.
While organizations often focus on data location or cloud control, fewer examine where their technology originates or how exposed they are if that supply chain is disrupted, manipulated, or weaponized.
Risk extends across the technology stack, hardware, software, firmware, cloud platforms, and the managed and professional services that operate them. Where any layer is controlled by a non-EU entity subject to foreign state influence, sovereignty is at risk, even where systems appear stable.
In practice, visibility is limited. Primary vendors may be known, but sub-suppliers, jurisdictions, ownership structures, and the legal frameworks that have reach into those supply chains are often not. This opacity is not neutral, risks cannot be identified, assessed, or managed.
These risks are no longer theoretical. Export controls, sanctions, tampering, and vendor withdrawal are established concerns within the geopolitical landscape. Without visibility, organizations cannot protect their supply chain.
Fujitsu’s response
Fujitsu approaches Supply Chain Sovereignty as a multi-layer discipline focusing on visibility, risk assessment, and resilience. The outcomes of this service help customers map and evidence their supply chain sovereignty posture across relevant layers of the technology stack and identified sub-supplier relationships.
Through Fujitsu’s Digital Sovereignty Advisory Services, we assess an organization’s supply chain sovereignty posture, combining the eight dimensions of sovereignty with structured risk methodologies to evaluate control, and resilience at each layer.
This includes advice about critical dependencies originating from supply chain.
From this, single-source dependencies, non-EU control concentrations, and foreign state influence are identified, alongside the feasibility, cost, and impact of diversification or alternative sourcing.
A distinction is made between contractual assurances and genuine independence, recognizing that documented compliance does not equate to actual control.
Rather than prescribing a single approach, organizations are supported to determine where EU-based alternatives are viable, where enhanced controls are sufficient, and where transition is justified by sovereign risk.
The outcome
Organizations gain visibility and an evidence-based understanding of their supply chain sovereignty posture, replacing assumption with evidence and avoiding knowledge without capability.
This provides clarity on the origin, ownership, and jurisdictional exposure of technology supply chains at every layer, including sub-supplier dependencies and foreign legal influence.
In turn, informed decisions can be made about which dependencies to accept, mitigate, or eliminate, applying controls, diversifying supply, or investing in transition. The objective is not complete self-sufficiency in technology production, but strategic resilience: the ability to absorb supply chain shocks without losing operational continuity, and to make sovereign choices about which dependencies are acceptable.Resilience can then be built into supply chains to withstand geopolitical stress, through diversification, inventory, redundancy, and transition capacity, maintaining operational continuity while reducing exposure to disruption, manipulation, or withdrawal of supply.
The challenge
Technology Sovereignty evaluates the openness, transparency, and independence of the technology stack, ensuring organizations can interoperate, audit, and evolve solutions without dependency on proprietary, foreign-controlled systems.
In practice, sovereignty is determined by who controls the technology stack. Control is often concentrated in non-EU platforms across hypervisors, operating systems, cloud platforms, security tools, and network and storage infrastructure. If a vendor restricts or withdraws services, critical applications may no longer function.
Vendor lock-in introduces further risk. Proprietary APIs, closed protocols, and tightly coupled formats limit interoperability and make migration complex, reducing the ability to switch providers or adapt architecture.
External vendors also control the technology lifecycle, including version releases, deprecation, and security patching, directly impacting stability and long-term viability.
Portability depends on the real effort required to move workloads and data, which can restrict practical independence.
Sovereignty is also defined by control over encryption, identity, and key management (certificates, identity providers, cryptographic systems), and exposure to external legal and regulatory frameworks governing the stack.
Fujitsu’s response
Fujitsu approaches Technology Sovereignty by strenparhening control within the technology stack, combining sovereign infrastructure, open platforms, and architecture design to reduce dependency on proprietary and non-EU-controlled technologies.
Through our Digital Sovereignty Advisory Services, Fujitsu assesses an organization’s sovereignty posture, design recommendations to achieve a target sovereignty posture score, and consider the feasibility based on business requirements, risk appetite, and technical constraints to produce a tailored roadmap.
The assessment includes assessing vendor control, lifecycle dependency, portability and interoperability, encryption and identity control, and jurisdictional exposure.
The ideal approach is to achieve a sovereign control plane through Platform Engineering, ensuring organizations retain authority over platform operation and evolution. No external vendor can unilaterally upgrade, deprecate, or disable the platform. To achieve this is a deliberate strategy and this can be part of our recommendations.
Our recommendations are built on the risk-based assessment, plus the due diligence we have conducted into a range of Sovereign solutions available in Europe. In addition to achieving a sovereign control plane as above, these tailored roadmaps could include Fujitsu sovereign datacenters, open-stack platforms, private and hybrid cloud, and Kubernetes management (e.g. SUSE Rancher), encryption key solutions, local cloud solutions, sovereign infrastructure and sovereign AI solutions.
Control over encryption is strengthened through external key management integration, ensuring authority over cryptographic controls even on third-party platforms.
Where it is a suitable fit for customers’ needs, Fujitsu leverages partners such as OVHcloud for sovereign EU-based infrastructure (e.g. bare metal without hypervisor dependency), alongside sovereign AI on controlled hardware and platforms.
Together, this delivers sovereign hardware, open platforms, private cloud, and AI control with EU-aligned governance, turning sovereignty into an enforceable architecture.
The outcome
Organizations gain strengthened sovereignty posture with increased control over the operation, lifecycle, and security of their technology stack.
This includes control over how platforms are run, when versions are upgraded or deprecated, and how security patches are applied, with greater visibility into, and sovereignty applied to, external vendors.
Control is retained over encryption, and key management, including certificates and cryptographic systems.
Architectures can be designed to be interoperable and portable in practice, with a clear understanding of the effort required to migrate workloads and data, enabling transition without proprietary constraints.
The objective is that organizations operate with control plane sovereignty, ensuring no provider can unilaterally restrict, suspend, or change the platform, while maintaining continuity, security, and adaptability as requirements evolve.
The challenge
Security and Compliance Sovereignty addresses the risk that foreign entities may demand access to sensitive data, disrupt critical services, or compromise security controls due to extraterritorial influence or technological dependencies.
In many environments, security and compliance are shaped by external providers, global supply chains, and technologies that are subject to foreign jurisdiction. As a result, control over security operations and decision-making can sit outside the organization or outside the EU.
This means technical controls alone are insufficient. What matters is where authority sits, how decisions are made, and whether controls are enforceable under EU law, rather than how systems are configured in isolation.
Operational dependency further weakens sovereignty. Reliance on external providers for threat detection, prevention, and incident response can limit the ability to act independently or maintain control during disruption.
Achieving sovereignty therefore requires local control, end-to-end transparency across supply chains, and auditability, alongside independence from foreign-controlled security technologies and expertise, ensuring continuous availability and integrity of digital services.
Fujitsu’s response
At Fujitsu Europe, Security and Compliance Sovereignty is embedded into how services are designed, delivered, and operated, through a regionally governed, ISO/IEC 27001:2022-certified Information Security Management System (ISMS). This integrates sovereignty, regulatory compliance, operational control, and auditability into service delivery across Europe.
This model enables organizations to maintain full control over their digital security landscape, with all aspects of cybersecurity managed without external interference or reliance on non-EU-controlled entities.
Through Fujitsu’s Digital Sovereignty Advisory Services, organizations are supported in defining authority, accountability and alignment with developing EU regulatory frameworks.
This is complemented by an operating model that prioritizes independence in practice, enabling organizations to manage threat detection, prevention, incident response, and compliance processes directly.
Transparency and auditability are maintained end-to-end, allowing independent verification that controls are effective in practice, rather than relying solely on policy or certification.
Resilience is built into the model, ensuring control is retained in the event of vendor failure, contractual change, or external disruption.
These capabilities are supported by Fujitsu’s Uvance offerings, alongside Professional and Managed Security Services that enable security assessment, compliance adherence, and continuous operational maturity.
The outcome
Organizations gain enforceable and demonstrable control over their security and compliance environment, ensuring controls are executable within EU jurisdiction.
This enables retention of authority over security decisions and independent execution of threat detection, prevention, and incident response, with full transparency and auditability across security operations and supply chains.
The challenge
Environmental Sovereignty considers how cloud and technology decisions affect energy use, carbon emissions, water consumption, hardware lifecycle, and supply chain practices, alongside sovereignty requirements such as control, location, and dependency.
Data centers consume significant energy, generate carbon emissions, require water for cooling, and depend on hardware supply chains involving raw material extraction, manufacturing, disposal, and labor practices.
Sovereignty requirements can increase or reduce these impacts. For example, requiring data or workloads to remain in a specific jurisdiction may mean using local data centers connected to higher-carbon energy grids. In other cases, where renewable energy is available, sovereign cloud contracts can instead specify green energy and support more sustainable data center operations.
Supply chain choices create similar trade-offs. Regional sourcing can improve oversight of raw materials, labor practices, recycling, reuse, and repair, but may also reduce access to components produced with more sustainable materials or processes elsewhere.
Regulation adds further complexity. Data residency obligations may push workloads into less energy-efficient locations, while the EU Green Deal, CSRD, and UKSRS are increasing expectations for sustainability performance and reporting.
Provider switching and multi-cloud strategies can also carry environmental impact through data migration, dual running, and differences in provider performance, making transparency over energy use, carbon footprint, and waste management essential.
Fujitsu’s response
Fujitsu supports organizations by integrating sustainability into cloud and technology strategies alongside sovereignty requirements.
This includes assessing energy usage, carbon impact, water consumption, hardware lifecycle, data center location, energy sourcing, and supplier selection.
Fujitsu provides a Carbon Impact Assessment of IT, including cloud providers, enabling organizations to measure and compare the environmental impact of different deployment and sourcing choices.
Net Zero Technology Transition Planning supports governance and risk management, helping organizations align sovereignty and sustainability decisions from the outset.
Operational measures include end-of-life and waste management solutions based on reuse, repair, and recycling, alongside circular economy models such as Hardware-as-a-Service to extend asset lifecycles and reduce demand for new raw materials.
Fujitsu also advances innovation in sustainable data centers and the use of AI to improve power efficiency. This is supported through partnerships with providers such as Supermicro and Nvidia to deliver more energy-efficient infrastructure.
The outcome
Organizations gain a clear view of how sovereignty decisions affect energy consumption, carbon emissions, water use, hardware lifecycle, and supply chain impact.
This enables decisions on data center location, energy sourcing, supplier selection, and workload placement to reflect both jurisdictional requirements and sustainability outcomes.
As a result, organizations can evaluate trade-offs between local control and environmental performance, reduce impact where feasible, extend hardware life through circular economy practices, and meet growing expectations for sustainability reporting and accountability.
Discover more about our Digital Sovereignty Advisory Services and see how we can help you understand, assess, and boost your sovereignty posture.
You may be one of the many organizations with initiatives in play across cloud, security, resilience, AI and compliance. You may already be identifying and assessing dependencies, mapping them and evaluating alternative options.
Yet the context keeps changing.
Digital sovereignty sits at the intersection of risk, resilience and strategy. While not everything needs to change, leaders do need a clearer picture of where greater control is required, what can remain and what should be strengthened first.
Fujitsu makes digital sovereignty practical and addressable in complex, hybrid environments.
Our approach aligns with sovereignty policies and European market expectations. It is grounded in risk-based methods recommended by industry analysts. And it builds on decades of experience within Fujitsu of designing, measuring and strengthening resilience in highly sensitive environments. These include defense and critical national infrastructure, where control, choice and assurance are non-negotiable.
Instead of prescribing one-size-fits-all outcome, Fujitsu helps leaders make proportionate, evidence-based choices. And helps strengthen sovereignty in ways that support resilience, innovation and long-term confidence.
Fujitsu provides end-to-end cloud, security, and data solutions focused on digital sovereignty. Serving sensitive sectors, it combines European and other sovereign technologies to deliver consulting, AI, data centers, and managed services, offering neutral, fact-based guidance to strengthen data protection and sovereignty strategies.
Read more
Technology partners are different to technology suppliers. A partner is not just an organization that receives a significant amount of your budget. A partner is also aligned with and supporting your technology strategy, underpinning your business strategy. Most enterprise organizations spend 80% of their IT spend on 25 or fewer vendors (NPI).
With digital sovereignty as a new consideration, it is time to review your partners and wider set of suppliers and document those which are critical to your organization. We recommend you seek specialized advice like Fujitsu’s Digital Sovereignty Advisory Services to get tailored advice about moving to local cloud providers e.g. OVHcloud, StackIT, to hyperscaler sovereign cloud options, to achieve non-hyperscaler encryption key solutions such as Thales, as well as other sovereign solutions.
Read more
This guide provides a structured and practical view of Fujitsu's digital sovereignty proposition. It explores the evolving risk landscape, outlines the eight dimensions of sovereignty, and introduces a clear methodology to make sovereignty visible, measurable and actionable. It gives leaders and key influencers a shared framework to understand dependencies, prioritize risks and align sovereignty decisions with business and technology strategy.
A European Institution (EI) needed to understand whether a European sovereign cloud could be a credible option for their applications, databases and AI services. Through rigorous testing of a local cloud provider, Fujitsu helped them to understand, validate and deliver a European sovereign cloud solution.
Legacy systems limited agility and cost efficiency, while complex architectures hampered support for growing demands and modernization. By executing a cloud-first strategy Fujitsu helped Mazda Motor Logistics Europe deliver streamlined operations, enhanced security, and provided cost-saving tools.
By transferring legacy systems with siloed IT solutions, processes and data, Fujitsu enabled DigiHelsinki Oy to develop and reform their ICT infrastructure. Delivering a digitally centralized city-based infrastructure and expanding IT services for residents and employees.
A government organization responsible for critical infrastructure needed to ensure secure, resilient operations while addressing the growing impact of disruptive cyber threats. Fujitsu delivered a tailored Security Network Operations Centre, enabling continuous monitoring, rapid response and secure information sharing across national and international boundaries.
Discover more about our Digital Sovereignty Advisory Services and see how we can help you understand, assess, and boost your sovereignty posture.