5. Discussion

While parallels can be drawn between the Faroese, Greenlandic and Ålandic cases in terms of their geographical “remoteness” and their political ties to Finland and Denmark respectively, the findings of this study reveal several crucial differences. These fundamental variations in approaches to eID adoption underscore differing inclusion implications and offer valuable insights into inclusive eID design, rollout and usage in smaller societies and across the Nordic-Baltic region. History, political ties and prioritisation form the structural foundation for understanding these findings.

The current and historical political links to Denmark and Finland respectively have been key factors in the rollout of eID solutions in the three societies. In the cases of Greenland and Åland, existing solutions have been integrated into local contexts without first undergoing comprehensive adaptation processes in terms of interface, functionality or the use of underlying technical organisational and legal frameworks, such as personal data registries. In Greenland, the Danish public eID system, MitID, was adopted, whereas in Åland, private providers offer the same eID solution to their customers as in mainland Finland. This enables seamless integration within the broader digital administration of the respective society, supporting concepts like the Only-Once principle, thereby streamlining administrative processes. Moreover, the use of existing systems enables Åland and Greenland to spare resources as no new digital infrastructure needs to be developed from the ground up. However, this also means that the authority to make changes and adaptations, as well as control over personal data, lies with entities other than the local governments.

The Faroe Islands, by contrast, have implemented their own public eID system, Samleikin. However, levering external expertise has also been a key element in the successful development and implementation of the local eID infrastructure. The Faroese collaboration with Estonia on secure digital data exchange constitutes a crucial technological backbone of the Faroese eID ecosystem and reflects the political will and prioritisation of data sovereignty. The Estonian X-Road allows for secure data transfer between Faroese public entities, ensuring interoperability and data integrity (Hardy, 2024). The open-source nature of X-Road further means that the Faroese government incurred only limited expenses for implementation of this system.

Data sovereignty guarantees control over a political entity’s own data, meaning that data are generated, collected, processed and stored locally in compliance with the local regulations. This is pivotal to protecting citizens’ privacy and data security. In the case of smaller communities like in the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland, it minimises the dependence on, and possible interference from, external actors and expertise. Data sovereignty also fosters the notion of digital self-determination, placing the digital transformation process under the control of local authorities (Remolina & Findlay, 2021). This can facilitate the adaptation of digital solutions to local contexts and needs. In the Faroese case, the establishment of a personal data registry operating independently of the Danish system paved the way for Faroese data sovereignty. The decision to adopt an independent eID approach further supported this path, contributing to the wider independence efforts and debates in the Faroe Islands.

In Greenland, where independence debates have been ongoing and have gained complexity since the beginning of 2025 due to US interests in “acquiring” the territory, the use of the Danish MitID has reinforced existing ties with Danish authorities and administrative infrastructures. Insights from the study confirmed that the implementation and use of MitID was conducted in cooperation with the Danish Agency for Digital Government. In addition, from autumn 2024 onwards, more regular visits by Danish experts to Greenland have been planned to assist with the implementation of MitID, indicating a predominantly top-down process. While this approach facilitates communication, transactions and even movement within the Kingdom of Denmark, it does not support Greenlandic data sovereignty or a bottom-up development and integration process.

In the Faroese case, participants emphasised the benefit of their approach in terms of the ability to maintain close and direct contact with a range of user groups and learn from them. This approach fosters more democratic engagement in the rollout and further development of Samleikin, which is crucial for ensuring digitally inclusive processes. Participants from Åland highlighted a similar aspect, noting the benefits of living in a small community where public authorities are able to gather all relevant local actors physically, streamlining communication processes. This is particularly relevant given that the future of a public eID system is still under negotiation in Finland and Åland. Like the Faroe Islands, Åland maintains its own personal data registry. However, due to the absence of a significant independence movement in Åland, the data sovereignty debate is of less relevance.

The different approaches highlight the significant resources required for implementation of comprehensive digital transformation measures like the introduction of an eID system. In regions with limited economic capacity, political prioritisation of this area often comes at the expense of other fields, warranting careful consideration. However, the ability to adapt the system easily to local cultures, structures and needs, such as language and accessible support formats, can be vital to guarantee an inclusive rollout process and product. Particularly in the context of the introduction of eIDs, such local conditions are crucial considering the extensive everyday implications of eID usage. Compared to other recreational or administrative digital services, eIDs have become essential not only for identity verification to access, use, share and protect personal data – including health records and financial documentation – but also to apply for public financial support schemes and to communicate with public authorities more generally. This makes eID a key instrument for democratic engagement, safeguarding dignified living standards and other fundamental everyday tasks, however basic. This in turn underscores the importance of prioritising digital inclusion in the digital transformation, as neglecting it could have detrimental effects on certain population groups that might already be experiencing marginalisation in digital and other contexts due to factors such as age, language skills or disabilities, as indicated by this study’s findings.

In the Faroe Islands, Samleikin has been developed with local conditions and interests in mind, resulting in the availability of a wide range of support solutions, including physical help desks, phone support, information evenings and a simplified way to access the scheme that is tailored to the needs of the island’s large seafaring community. The Faroese approach is built on continuous efforts aimed at web accessibility and the involvement of a range of user groups to ensure that their needs are met. The integration of Samleikin and associated solutions has also been supported by the overall high digital maturity, particularly in terms of accessibility and skills, throughout the Faroe Islands. In addition, an extensive network of tunnels facilitates travel across the various islands, allowing for easier access to a range of physical support structures.

In the case of Greenland, the findings also indicated a lack of adaptation to local conditions. The interviews underlined various issues, including the lack or inaccessibility of coordinated support structures. As in Åland and the Faroe Islands, most of the Greenlandic population resides in the capital region. This leaves the smaller and more peripheral archipelago islands and remoter parts sparsely populated, with poorer transportation links to local hubs. In Greenland, transport between towns and settlements is mainly limited to travel by air or sea, making it lengthy, expensive and potentially hazardous. Reports of having to undertake long journeys in harsh weather conditions to access physical MitID support were common. These issues make it particularly difficult for individuals with disabilities or limited socioeconomic means to obtain help. The small population, harsh weather conditions and difficult terrain not only negatively affect physical infrastructure but also digital connectivity, leading to high internet prices across Greenland. This particularly limits the ability of homeless and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals to access the internet and benefit from eID use. 

In addition to these geographical and (infra)structural challenges that disproportionately affect some population groups in the three case studies, further concerns specific to individual groups need to be identified and addressed to facilitate an inclusive eID rollout. While these differ from case to case and are highly context-specific, they also show certain parallels. For instance, physical impairments were mentioned several times as barriers for individuals with disabilities across all three case studies, with one Ålandic participant highlighting the need for tactile abilities to use an app as a key barrier. In both the Greenlandic and Faroese cases, concerns were raised related to the availability of translations. For instance, the MitID application is only available in Danish and English, with only very limited content translated into Greenlandic, affecting accessibility for members of the Greenlandic society who only speak Greenlandic. In the Faroe Islands, individuals who do not speak Faroese, Danish or English struggle with the use of Samleikin. In Åland, other accessibility obstacles included the requirement to have a bank account to obtain an eID – posing a barrier for homeless or socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals – or a lack of trust in digital services among older individuals.

The notion of trust emerged as a key theme in various contexts. In the close, tight-knit social structures of small communities, such as in Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland, both family networks and the population’s relationship with the local government were seen to play an important role in the rollout and adoption of eID solutions. In both the Faroe Islands and Greenland, reliance on family members to access, understand and use the respective eID solutions was noted by several participants. As outlined in the “Findings” section of this report, such networks can provide crucial support but can also affect individual privacy. Some participants described controlling behaviour by relatives or partners, while other highlighted a silencing effect in the rollout and development process of eID solutions, driven by fear of stigmatisation within a small society. This underlines the importance of considering social dynamics in the design and acceptance of technology in small (island) societies differing from urban contexts.

While the identified challenges and barriers, as well as the solutions, are diverse and situational, they also reveal more substantial structural challenges that act as bottlenecks to inclusive eID accessibility in the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland. A lack of local influence and control, as in Greenland, can render adaptation to these challenges difficult. The reported and observed barriers underscore the need to treat digital inclusion as a starting point rather than an afterthought, ensuring inclusive access from the beginning in an anticipatory and participatory manner. 

These highly contextual challenges suggest that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to eID rollout and usage. Specific cultural and socioeconomic realities, along with different population groups and their requirements, need to be taken into account to ensure inclusivity and access to support, making copy-paste solutions without adaptation to local contexts unfeasible at best and harmful at worst. The findings of this project have shown that citizen involvement and comprehensive support infrastructures that take account of different needs and abilities are crucial in the inclusive rollout of eID solutions. Furthermore, analogue solutions are essential, especially during the transition phase of the digital transformation, when not all members of society can be considered “digital natives”. In the multilanguage societies of the three cases studied, translation services have also emerged as pivotal to offering services that are equally accessible to a broad cross-section of society, including immigrants. 

The varying conditions of the three societies in question have shown that local circumstances significantly influence the extent to which these solutions can be implemented. Improvements depend on external factors such as political mandate, economic feasibility, expansion of digital connectivity and physical infrastructure. These factors cannot be addressed solely within a digital inclusion policy. Rather, they must be considered during the development of solutions aimed at making eID systems more accessible to individuals and groups that are “digitally at risk”.