2. Theoretical background

The Nordic societies are recognised as frontrunners in the digitalisation of the public sector, with digital services having become an integrated element of public sector services over the last two decades (see e.g. Fossheim & Lund-Tønnesen, 2024).

Political strategies have long emphasised the digitalisation of the public sector as a means of strengthening the welfare state through more efficient and cost-effective service delivery and improvement of the population's access to services (Huby et al., 2024). However, scholars have also raised concerns regarding the increased digitalisation of the public sector, including the risk of exclusion of certain groups and individuals from society (Van Dijk, 2020) and how this may ultimately reshape the relationship between citizens and the public sector (Jørgensen, 2023).

A core feature of the digitalisation of the public sector in the Nordic countries is the use of eIDs. Today, eIDs are required for a range of everyday activities, including bank transfers, online shopping and interacting with and receiving information from public authorities. eIDs generally provide data security for individuals and offer a more cost-efficient solution for the welfare state. However, if not rolled out inclusively, they risk excluding individuals who lack digital skills, internet access or the necessary hardware from participating in everyday activities. The following section outlines the definition, relevance and shortcomings of eID use and rollout.

An eID is a digital solution used to verify the identity of an individual, company or organisation. Across the EU, there is considerable variation regarding the entities issuing eIDs, the types of documentation required to obtain them and the personal data associated with them (European Commission, 2025a). While eIDs are government-issued in several Member States, others rely on private actors, such as banks, to provide eID solutions. Although eIDs are primarily used to ascertain a legal or natural person’s identity in online environments, they can also be used in non-digital settings, such as at a physical post office.

With the digital transformation moving many administrative and commercial transactions online, eIDs have enhanced the efficiency and security of these processes. In line with the “Once-Only Principle” (OOP), eIDs and associated e-government infrastructures are designed to enable securely stored information on citizens and organisations to be accessed and reused for and by multiple public and private services and transactions, thereby reducing the administrative and financial burden on both the individual and the government authorities (Schmidt et al., 2021).

The Once-Only Principle was included in the 2009 EU Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment as a key element of the development of the Digital Single Market (Rohen, 2015).

It is therefore important to view eIDs not merely as individual identity documents, but as integral components of a broader ecosystem encompassing digital governance and data management structures. Particularly in the Nordic context, access to analogue alternatives for some digital government services has been decreasing or becoming more complicated. Prominent examples include the Danish digital public postbox, e-Boks. With increasing efforts being made to phase out the use of paper-based solutions, individuals must now apply for an exemption to receive public communications in a physical format (Danish Agency for Digital Government, 2025). 

As eIDs become increasingly essential for everyday activities, the secure use of eIDs has been widely addressed by policymakers and security scholars alike. In the context of the GDPR and advanced authentication methods for protecting individuals’ information in the digital age, eIDs are generally regarded as a more secure alternative to traditional ID cards, passports and other forms of physical identification. Due to past fraudulent activities, including counterfeiting and identity theft, conventional forms of identification have reportedly seen a decline in trust at both individual and state levels (Blue et al., 2017). In Estonia, this has contributed to a shift away from paper identification towards eIDs for certain official transactions involving particularly sensitive data, such as access to health records, voting or the submission of tax declarations (Blue et al., 2018; Estonian Information System Authority, 2025).

However, electronic forms of identification are not immune to fraud and misuse. By allowing access to comprehensive details on individual citizens and organisations, technical loopholes and poorly implemented privacy regulations have been among the central concerns regarding protection of identity integrity in the digital transformation. Various vulnerabilities of single national eID infrastructures have been the subject of scholarly debates on technical shortcomings over the past years; see e.g. Kingo & Aranha (2023). As eIDs assume increasingly central roles in modern democracies, such vulnerabilities highlight the potential expenses and damages that any security breach could cause (Edu et al., 2023). The advent of future quantum capabilities could further exacerbate such risks (Csenkey & Bindel, 2023). Beyond the technical security challenges, it is crucial to consider broader dependencies and resilience in maintaining functional digital infrastructure (Raieste et al., 2024). 

Additionally, the risk of excluding citizens who lack access to necessary resources, thereby undermining the democratic structures of a country, must be considered in the discussion on eIDs. This expands the concept of security to encompass the human and socioeconomic dimension. While eIDs provide citizens with a more seamless and resource-efficient way to access key public and private services – one that is becoming increasingly indispensable – societal consequences, especially regarding inclusion, remain understudied.

The acronym eIDAS stands for “electronic Identification, Authentication and Trust Services”. It refers to EU Regulation No 910/2014, which “provides a regulatory environment for electronic identification of natural and legal persons and for trust services in the internal market” (European Commission, n.d.). The regulation came into force in July 2016, focusing primarily on standardising and legitimising electronic signatures, seals and timestamps across the union. The updated “eIDAS 2.0” framework, which came into force in May 2024, continues to emphasise interoperable cross-border eID usability across the EU and European Economic Area (EEA), and introduces the implementation of the universal digital identity wallet concept. Under eIDAS 2.0, every EU and EEA Member State is required to offer a version of the EU Digital Identity Wallet (EUID Wallet) by 2026. The regulation pursues two main objectives. First, EUID Wallet aims to make it easier for EU and EEA citizens and residents to store, manage and share their credentials digitally. Second, the EUID Wallet is intended to allow for a more seamless and comprehensive use of national eIDs across the European Union and European Economic Area, for both private and public services (Hendrickson, 2024).

Regarding the first objective, the EUID Wallet offers EU and EEA citizens and residents greater transparency by allowing them to choose which credentials, identity information and attributes to include and with whom to share them. This functionality links to the concept of Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI), which emphasises the decentralised control of digitised data. In this case, it places data management control in the hands of the individual citizen or resident, rather than a centralised public authority (Pöhn et al., 2021). The goal of making this eID system more user-centric is closely linked to improvements in the overall usability of the wallet, as well as heightened security and interoperability across all Member States to allow for seamless online transactions and services involving private and public actors. 

The second objective, while closely related to the first, focuses more strongly on interoperability and its possible effects on the internal market. A standardised and pan-European system for identity authentication and trust services allows businesses to rely on secure and accurate data to deliver their services (Hendrickson, 2024). It further facilitates labour migration, as citizens can move and work more freely across the Member States, strengthening the internal market and fostering an environment of trust and cross-border cooperation (European Commission, 2025b). Despite these ambitions for an improved and more inclusive system, many of the challenges outlined in the previous section persist, including security vulnerabilities and questions pertaining to digital inclusion. 

In the case of Åland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, it is important to note that the unique administrative and political status of each political entity influences the relevance of the eIDAS Regulation. While Åland, through its political association with Finland, is subject to EU regulations, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are neither part of the European Union nor the European Economic Area (Rebhan, 2023) and are therefore not required to implement eIDAS. However, Faroese and Greenlandic citizens who hold a Danish passport are considered EU citizens and are entitled to and bound by the associated rights and obligations. This status does not affect the implementation of eIDAS in Greenland or the Faroe Islands. Nevertheless, changes to the Danish electronic ID system, MitID – which allows residents to access a wide range of public and private services – in compliance with eIDAS will affect Danish and Greenlandic citizens equally, as it is also used in Greenland.

The concept of digital inclusion, defined by the UN as "Equitable, meaningful and safe access to use, lead and design of digital technologies, services and associated opportunities for everyone, everywhere”, is closely linked to the concept of social inclusion (United Nations, n.d.). The World Bank defines social inclusion as "the process of improving the terms on which individuals and groups take part in society – improving the ability, opportunity and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity” (World Bank, n.d.). The institution further explains that “in every country, some groups confront barriers that prevent them from fully participating in political, economic and social life” (ibid). The barriers faced by these groups in relation to their social inclusion often overlap with or are closely related to the barriers that hinder their digital inclusion. Examples of such barriers can be found in the extensive literature on the digital divide, which identifies divides at the first level (physical access), second level (skills and use) and third level (effects arising from the first and second level, such as the social, economic and political consequences of digital exclusion) (Reisdorf & Rhinesmith, 2020). 

In recent years, the concepts of social and digital inclusion have therefore become not only closely related but also inseparable. In today’s digitalised society, social inclusion cannot be achieved without digital inclusion and vice versa, particularly as digital services such as eIDs increasingly play a central role in everyday life as a key pillar for citizens’ engagement in political, social and economic affairs. 

Universal design and accessibility principles, particularly in relation to web accessibility, are crucial components of digital inclusion and accessibility theories. They are pivotal to both policy discussions and scholarly debate on ensuring equal access opportunities for all population groups. 

Universal design is a concept focused on creating products and environments that are accessible and usable by everyone, to the greatest extent possible, without requiring adaptation or specialised design. It can be applied to both physical and digital environments. Regarding digital environments, this approach ensures that everyone, regardless of their abilities, can access and use digital services and tools effectively. The principles of universal design emphasise inclusivity from the start, focusing on creating solutions that cater to diverse needs and promote equal access to technology (Centre for Excellence in Universal Design, n.d.). The “Seven Principles of Universal Design” were developed in 1997 to guide the design of environments, products and communications (Connell et al., 1997).

Web accessibility ensures that everyone, including people with disabilities, can perceive, understand, navigate and interact with the internet (European Commission, 2025). The Web Accessibility Directive (WAD) was adopted in 2016 and came into full effect in 2021. The WAD mandates that all online websites and mobile apps of EU public sector entities must be digitally accessible to everyone, regardless of their abilities (ibid). The WAD outlines three main requirements:

The WAD complements the European Accessibility Act, a directive designed to enhance the internal market for accessible products and services by eliminating barriers caused by differing regulations across Member States. The European Accessibility Act covers a range of products and services in the private sector (European Commission, n.d.).

Web accessibility specifically focuses on making websites and web applications accessible to all people. This involves adhering to standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), which provide a comprehensive set of recommendations for making web content more accessible. These guidelines cover various aspects of web design, including text alternatives for non-text content, keyboard accessibility and compatibility with assistive technologies. Implementing web accessibility ensures that all users, including those with visual, auditory, motor or cognitive disabilities, can navigate and interact with web content effectively (W3C, 2024).

Such policy initiatives highlight the European Union’s commitment to addressing exclusion challenges in the context of increasing digitalisation. However, despite these growing efforts to bring digital inclusion topics to the pan-European political agenda and foster harmonised approaches across the Member States, numerous challenges remain. These range from uneven implementation and enforcement measures (Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (European Commission) et al., 2022) to regulatory gaps in the private sector (Ferri & Favalli, 2018) and the persistence of barriers beyond web accessibility, such as compatibility with assistive technologies (Droutsas et al., 2025). As with eIDAS, it is important to note that while Åland is bound by EU law, the Faroe Islands and Greenland are not required to apply the outlined legal instruments due to their status as non-EU political entities. However, since Greenlandic users rely on MitID, a system developed in Denmark, the compliance of MitID with EU laws will indirectly affect them. 

The following section explores in greater detail the empirical context of the three remote yet very different, smaller societies that this report takes as its point of departure: the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland.