Data sovereignty shifts from compliance to strategic imperative amid geopolitical uncertainties

A new study reveals organisations worldwide are rapidly redefining data location strategies to safeguard against geopolitical disruptions and reputational damage, emphasising the need for a hybrid cloud approach to balance control and agility.

In an era marked by profound geopolitical shifts and evolving regulatory landscapes, data sovereignty has emerged as a critical business risk that extends far beyond traditional compliance concerns. A recent study released by Pure Storage in collaboration with the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) highlights this transformation, revealing that organisations worldwide are urgently reassessing their data location strategies to mitigate potential service disruptions, reputational damage, and loss of customer trust. The qualitative pulse survey, engaging industry leaders across nine countries including Australia, France, Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and the UK, found unanimous consensus on the pressing nature of data sovereignty risks.

The research underscores a “perfect storm” scenario where service disruption risks, foreign governmental influence, and a rapidly evolving regulatory environment converge, creating unprecedented exposure for businesses and nations alike. According to the survey, 100% of respondents acknowledged that sovereignty-related concerns have compelled them to reconsider data storage decisions, while 92% highlighted that geopolitical changes are increasing these risks. A striking 92% warned of potential reputational damage stemming from inadequate sovereignty planning, and 85% identified the erosion of customer trust as the ultimate consequence of inaction. In response, 78% of organisations are already adopting multifaceted data strategies, including multi-service provider models, sovereign data centres, and enhanced governance requirements in commercial contracts.

Industry experts stress that the solution lies in a balanced, risk-aware approach rather than an absolute rejection or uncritical adoption of public cloud services. Pure Storage advocates for a strategic risk assessment to identify which workloads and datasets are most critical and sensitive, placing these within sovereign environments that comply with local regulations, while leveraging public cloud capabilities for less sensitive functions. This hybrid model is designed to preserve agility and innovation without compromising control and compliance—an increasingly vital balance in today’s fast-moving digital economy.

Rolf Krolke, Regional Technology Director, APAC at The Access Group, emphasised the importance of sovereignty for organisations managing sensitive global data, noting that customers from the UK’s National Health Service to Australia’s Tax Department explicitly require sovereignty clauses in contracts. He credited Pure Storage’s solutions for enabling the delivery of sovereign enterprise data clouds tailored to different regional requirements. Meanwhile, Pure Storage’s Chief Technology Officer for International markets, Alex McMullan, warned of the acute consequences of neglecting comprehensive sovereignty strategies, including financial losses, competitive disadvantages, and brand damage. McMullan reiterated the value of a risk-based hybrid approach, balancing sovereign cloud use for critical operations with the public cloud for non-essential workloads.

Beyond the research findings, recent industry trends amplify the urgency of addressing data sovereignty. In the UK, many enterprises are expressing regret over exclusive reliance on U.S.-based public cloud platforms amid concerns over data control, residency, and geopolitical risks. A study cited by ITPro noted that 95% of UK IT leaders worry about data governance, with nearly half planning to reduce exposure to U.S. jurisdictions due to political developments and high operational costs. This sentiment echoes throughout Europe, where the European Commission aims to significantly expand cloud infrastructure capacity within five to seven years to fortify digital sovereignty. With legislation such as the U.S. CLOUD Act heightening fears of foreign data access, initiatives like the IPCEI-CIS are fostering sovereign cloud frameworks compliant with EU regulations, including GDPR.

European businesses increasingly favour hybrid cloud models, combining on-premises sovereign data centres with public cloud platforms to ensure compliance and control. Around 80% of IT professionals surveyed support repatriation of sensitive data to local environments to safeguard business continuity and trust. This strategic realignment reflects broader global trends where organisations must navigate a complex matrix of legal, financial, and reputational risks.

Academic voices reinforce the critical nature of data sovereignty in business strategy. Gordon Noble, Research Director at UTS’s Institute of Sustainable Futures, described the survey findings as a wake-up call, asserting that data sovereignty has transitioned from an optional compliance matter into an existential priority for organisations. Complementing this view, Archana Venkatraman, Senior Research Director at IDC Europe, highlighted that those businesses proactive in developing pragmatic strategies to enhance data resilience, control, and autonomy will minimize risks and dependencies in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape.

In summary, Pure Storage’s comprehensive position on data sovereignty calls for organisations to embrace a hybrid cloud framework underpinned by continuous strategic risk assessments and evolving governance models. By doing so, businesses can protect critical workloads within sovereign environments while leveraging the efficiencies of public cloud services where appropriate. This forward-looking approach not only ensures compliance amid fast-changing regulations but also preserves the innovation, agility, and resilience essential for sustained competitive advantage in the digital age.

📌 Reference Map:

• Paragraph 1 – ^[1], ^[6], ^[2]
• Paragraph 2 – ^[1], ^[3], ^[6]
• Paragraph 3 – ^[1], ^[2], ^[7]
• Paragraph 4 – ^[1], ^[6], ^[7]
• Paragraph 5 – ^[4], ^[1]
• Paragraph 6 – ^[5], ^[4]
• Paragraph 7 – ^[1], ^[6]
• Paragraph 8 – ^[1]

Source: Noah Wire Services