Research and analysis

International use of digital identities and credentials: stakeholder survey responses

Published 23 February 2026

1. Executive summary 

In May 2025, the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (OfDIA) commissioned an online survey which invited views on cross-border use of digital identities and credentials, and the government’s role in realising opportunities or removing barriers.  

The survey was completed by 39 companies providing digital verification services.  

Some questions were only presented to a subset of respondents based on their responses to previous questions (the full survey is available in annex A). As a result, the bases and percentages reported are calculated using the number of respondents who answered each individual question, rather than the total number of survey participants.  

Key findings are as follows: 

The current landscape 

• 64% of respondents (24 responses) said they benefitted from international activity. 

• Business or market expansion was cited as the main benefit of international digital identity use, followed by enhanced trust.  

• Finance was identified as the highest-value area for cross-border use of digital identity, followed by compliance and verification. 

Barriers to operating internationally 

• Barriers to operating internationally were cited by 79% of respondents (26 responses). The main barriers cited were regulatory diversity, disparate systems and technical challenges. 

• The need for cross-border political or regulatory agreement to harmonise, align or mutually recognise national frameworks was cited by 62% of respondents (13 responses).  

• 57% of respondents (12 responses) wanted to see harmonisation, alignment and adoption of internationally recognised technical standards. 

Opportunities for UK government action 

• 79% of respondents (26 responses) wanted to see UK government involvement in enabling cross-border use of digital identity. 

• Government support for alignment of legal and regulatory frameworks with international standards was the most cited area for action, by 48% of respondents (11 responses). 

• Other areas cited for government action included establishment of mutual recognition agreements; enabling cooperation with international partners; enabling private sector/industry involvement in policy-making; issuing credentials, attributes and wallets; and providing clarity and guidance on legal and liability implications of cross-border digital identity use.  

• The EU was the most cited international partner with whom respondents recommended the UK work more closely.  

Benefits from increased internationalisation 

• Increased operational efficiency and reduced costs were the greatest reported benefit of increased cross-border use of digital identities, cited by 40% of respondents (12 responses). 

• Other reported benefits included improved user experience, market expansion, economic growth, reduction in fraud and increased status of the UK in the global market. 

OfDIA will use the findings of this survey to help inform further discussions with stakeholders on the UK’s approach to cross-border use of digital identities and attributes.

2. Introduction 

Interoperability of digital identities, within the UK and across international borders, is one of the six principles that underpin the UK government’s approach to digital identity policy, alongside privacy, transparency, inclusivity, proportionality and good governance. 

The UK system has therefore been designed with international standards at its core, as a means through which to achieve interoperability in practice. Components of this system include:    

• The UK’s set of rules for secure and trusted digital identity services - the UK digital identity and attributes trust framework – which has been developed in line with recognised international standards (e.g.  ISO, W3C) and is regularly benchmarked against other international systems.  

• Products and services that are independently certified against these standards in a system that aligns with international standards (ISO 17065:2012.), with a list of services certified against this standard appearing on the GOV.UK register of digital identity and attribute services (which is the statutory Digital Verification Services register under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025). 

• The UK government’s own suite of digital identity products, including GOV.UK OneLogin and the GOV.UK Wallet, which similarly reflect international standards (e.g. ISO 18013-5).  

This standards-based approach ensures the UK system is flexible enough to align with digital identity products being developed in other countries that also embrace the same standards-based approach. 

The UK Office for Digital Identities (OfDIA) stakeholder survey on international use of digital identities and credentials was therefore designed to be a next step in an open conversation with stakeholders across the UK on how the government could enable the cross-border use of digital identities and credentials.  

Methodology 

This survey aimed to gather stakeholder views on opportunities and barriers to international digital identity use, and the role that the UK government might play in addressing these.  

The survey was open between 7 May and 30 May 2025.  The survey was distributed via the online Qualtrics platform to 266 contacts on our sample frame. 39 different organisations completed the survey. Each question received between 2 and 39 responses. The variation in response counts across questions may be due to skip logic (directing respondents to only answer questions relevant to their previous responses).  

Given the relatively small number of responses to the survey, insights from this research should not be considered representative of the views or constitution of all relevant stakeholders. Instead, they capture the perspectives of a group of stakeholders at a particular moment in time. It is worth noting that this survey was carried out prior to the UK government’s announcement d in September 2025 that it intends to create a national digital ID in September 2025. This should be taken into consideration when reviewing the findings presented within this report.  

Some sections of this report include excerpts taken from full responses provided in the survey, while other sections present complete quotes in their entirety. This approach ensures that key themes are highlighted concisely, while still preserving the richness and context of participants’ original words where appropriate. 

The combination of excerpts and full quotes was chosen to strike a balance between clarity and authenticity. Shortened excerpts help summarise key themes and make the report easier to navigate, while full quotes preserve the original tone and context of participants’ responses, ensuring their voices are accurately represented. 

We recognise that international interoperability is an important part of a digital identity system that is fit for the future, so we will continue to work with stakeholders to understand their perspectives as we develop the UK’s digital identity policy in this area.

3. Profile of companies responding 

In total, 39 companies responded to the survey.   

Of the 35 respondents that shared the location of their headquarters:  

• 26 were headquartered in the UK, 3 in the EU, 5 in the USA, and 1 on the Isle of Man.  

Companies were asked whether they were certified against the UK Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework. Of the 39 companies that responded: 

• 36% (14 responses) were certified against the UK Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework 

• 54% (21 responses) were not certified, 4 respondents didn’t know or did not disclose their organisation’s certification status. 

Among the 36 companies that listed the products or services they offer, document verification, biometric and liveness checks, and identity orchestration were the most common. This is broadly consistent with the wider UK market, as described by the UK digital identity sectoral analysis. 

Table 1 

Products and services offered by respondents	% of respondents	Count
		Base: 36
Document Verification	69%	25
Biometric & Liveness Checks	61%	22
Identity Orchestration	53%	19
Age Assurance	50%	18
Digital Identity Wallets	42%	15
Background Screening	42%	15
Financial & Address Verification	39%	14
Other (please specify)	36%	13
Identity & Consent Management	36%	13
Identity Data & Analytics	36%	13
Right to Work Checks	33%	12
Digital Certificates	31%	11
Electronic Signatures	25%	9
Right to Rent Checks	25%	9
Professional & Credential Verification	19%	7
DBS Checks	19%	7
Electronic Time Stamps	17%	6
Electronic Seals	14%	5
Electronic Authentication Registered Delivery Services	11%	4

International profile of respondents 

Of the 35 companies that responded to a question asking whether they operated internationally, 83% (29 responses) indicated that they did. 

Companies operating inbound into the UK from Europe (73%), and from outside of Europe (69%), were similarly represented. For companies operating outbound from the UK, more operate outside of Europe (69%) than to Europe (54%). 

Table 2 

Where respondents operate	% of respondents	Count
		Base: 26
Inbound to the UK from outside of Europe	73%	19
Inbound to the UK from Europe	69%	18
Outbound from the UK to outside of Europe	69%	18
Outbound from the UK to Europe	54%	14
Prefer not to say or did not know	12%	3

The most common sectors cited for international activity were the financial sector (22 responses), compliance and verification (18 responses), technology and digital (17 responses) and retail and customer services (10 responses).  

Table 3 

Sector that respondents’ international activity is in	% of respondents	Count
		Base: 28
Financial	79%	22
Compliance and verification	64%	18
Technology and digital	61%	17
Other industries (government, travel, property, legal)	43%	12
Retail and customer services	36%	10
Healthcare	32%	9
Gaming and entertainment	32%	9
Infrastructure and industry	32%	9
Education and social	29%	8
Automative and transports	11%	3

Of the 28 companies that responded, benefits from international activity were reported by 64% (18 responses). The most commonly cited benefits were business or market expansion (16 responses), enhanced trust (12 responses) and simplified compliance (11 responses).  

Table 4 

Benefits reported from international digital identity activity	% of respondents	Count
		Base: 18
Business or market expansion	89%	16
Enhanced trust	67%	12
Simplified compliance	61%	11
Enhanced security	50%	9
Efficiency gains	39%	7
Reduced costs	33%	6
Other	11%	2

4. Barriers to operating internationally 

Companies were asked if they faced any barriers to operating across international boundaries with their organisation’s digital identity activity.  

Of the 33 companies that responded, 79% (26 responses) answered yes, 15% (5 responses) answered no, and 6% (2 responses) responded that they don’t know.

The most frequently cited barriers were regulatory diversity between countries (23 responses), disparate systems (19 responses) and technical challenges (17 responses). 

Other barriers cited were lack of agreed terminology and concepts, cultural and social issues and security risks.  

Table 5 

Barriers to operating internationally	% of respondents	Count
		Base 26
Regulatory diversity between countries	88%	23
Disparate systems	73%	19
Technical challenges	65%	17
Lack of agreed terminology and common concepts	42%	11
Cultural and social	38%	10
Security risks	38%	10
Financial	19%	5
Other	15%	4
No market or economic incentive	12%	3

4.1 Conditions for maximising cross-border interoperability 

Companies were asked what conditions would need to exist for their organisation to maximise digital identity use across national borders.  

For this question, respondents provided free text responses, rather than selecting pre-specified categories. The 21 responses were categorised, with a summary of themes from responses below. 

Table 6 

Theme	% of respondents	Count
		Base: 21
Regulatory (legal, political, governance) harmonisation or alignment	62%	13
Standards (technical, terminology, attributes) harmonisation or alignment	57%	12
Recognition / alignment of trust frameworks or certification schemes	29%	6
Privacy / consent / data protection	24%	5
Access to official verification sources	19%	4
Security focus / combatting deepfakes	14%	3
Level of government/institutional support	14%	3
Cross-border collaboration and testing	10%	2

A need for cross-border political or regulatory agreement to harmonise, align or mutually recognise national frameworks was cited by 62% (13 responses) of respondents.  

Specific mention was made by 29% (6 responses) of respondents on the need to ensure mutual recognition of trust frameworks or certification schemes.  

Comments on this issue focused on the distinction between domestic and international frameworks, and opportunities to ‘uplift’ certification where standards differed: 

• “[There is a need for mutual recognition between] regulatory frameworks that enable cross-border recognition of digital identity solutions, such as the one established under eIDAS 2.0 in the EU.” 

• “We would appreciate if the UK DIATF could be recognised in say EU, Australia, or a % uplift only be required to be accredited to operate in those countries” 

* “Evaluation and certification processes [should] avoid duplication and facilitate the acceptance of solutions in multiple countries.” 

57% of respondents (12 responses) wanted to see harmonisation, alignment and adoption of internationally recognised technical standards, such as data schemas, ISO and W3C standards, consistent APIs and standardised approaches to specific attributes.

Various countries have Trust Frameworks or equivalent and they may be 80% aligned… but it’s what you do where they don’t.  Data Schemas, rules technology etc are not the issue, at least for us albeit at a cost, it’s gaining the agreement between government legislation / regulation that is likely to be the challenge.  To be clear the vast majority of our business is in support of domestic schemes for identity BUT the need for established domestic schemes to go cross-border is high.

(Respondent comment)  

Specific schemes, standards and frameworks referenced in responses included the following: 

• “Interoperable technical and security standards: Broad adoption of open, internationally recognized standards (e.g., ISO, W3C, IETF, NIST) to ensure system compatibility and trust.” 

• “Common terminology. Common Standards and Frameworks for information and data sharing. As an example look at ICAO 9303, which is fundamentally a Digital ID within an ID Card or Passport, backed by ICAO standing and standards for interoperability.” 

• “To maximise digital identity use across national borders, there must be interoperable standards (e.g., eIDAS 2.0, ISO).” 

Of other factors for maximising interoperability: 

• Privacy, consent and data protection issues were raised by 24% of respondents (5 responses), who cited the need for frameworks and protocols to enable cross-border data verification while maintaining data privacy. 

• Industry access to government-backed data sources was mentioned by 19% of respondents (4 responses). 

• Cybersecurity and the increasing risk of deepfake-enabled fraud was highlighted by 14% of respondents (3 responses). 

4.2 Highest value sectors 

The sectors identified by respondents as benefitting from increased secure use of digital identities across international borders included financial (28 responses), compliance and verification (24 responses) and technology and digital (17 responses). 

Table 7 

Selected option	% of respondents	Count
		Base: 33
Financial	85%	28
Compliance and verification	73%	24
Technology and digital	52%	17
Healthcare	39%	13
Gaming and entertainment	39%	13
Retail and customer services	39%	13
Infrastructure and industry	30%	10
Education and social	30%	10
Other industries	27%	9
Automative and transports	15%	5
Prefer not to say	6%	2

5.  UK government role in enabling international use of digital identities and credentials 

When asked if the UK government needs to be part of enabling the effective use of international digital identity services, 79% (26 responses) of the 33 companies that responded said yes. 12% (4 responses) said they don’t know, 6% (2 responses) said no and 3% (1 response) preferred not to say.  

Of these respondents, 23 provided further comment on how the UK government should intervene to enable international use of digital ID. For this question, respondents provided free text responses, rather than selecting pre-specified categories. These responses were scored, with a summary of themes from responses below. 

Respondents suggested that the most common areas requiring action by the UK government were: 

• Alignment of legal and regulatory frameworks with international standards (48% of respondents). 

• Mutual recognition agreements with international partners and/or development of interoperable frameworks (43% of respondents). 

• Cooperation with international partners (39% of respondents). 

Table 8 

Theme	% of respondents	Count
		Base: 23
Alignment of legal and regulatory frameworks with international standards	48%	11
Mutual recognition agreements with international partners and/or development of interoperable frameworks	43%	10
Cooperation with international partners	39%	9
Enabling private sector/industry involvement in policy-making	22%	5
Issue (or support the issuance of) credentials, attributes and wallets	17%	4
Providing clarity and guidance - on legal status of cross-border credentials, liability etc.	17%	4
UK gov leadership on progressing international interoperability	13%	3
Testing	9%	2
Introduction of more specific requirements	4%	1

Specific legal and regulatory frameworks and international standards mentioned by respondents as requiring UK alignment included eIDAS 2.0, ISO/ETSI, NIST 800-63-3, ISO/IEC 19790, Verifiable Credentials, DIDs and LEIs. 

Respondents mentioning mutual recognition agreements or interoperable frameworks wanted to see the UK government: 

• “Establish mutual recognition agreements with trusted countries and international frameworks to ensure UK-issued and foreign digital IDs are interoperable and legally recognised. 

• “Work with other trust frameworks to put in place ‘acceptance statements’ that show that non-UK IDs can be accepted in the UK, and Vice Versa.”  

• “[Recognise] foreign suppliers compliant with international standards: establish mechanisms to accept digital identity solutions certified under [international] frameworks…” 

• “Mutually [recognise] standards with other countries to ensure that checks conducted under UK schemes are acceptable in those countries and vice-versa”  

We see a huge opportunity in developing greater interoperability in the digital ID frameworks that are currently being developed globally – in particular between the UK and EU. Regulatory frameworks and legislation are being developed in both jurisdictions, with many of the same or similar standards being incorporated in both. Many of the providers that are meeting these standards operate internationally, and serve customers that want to offer services seamlessly across borders – particularly in the financial services space.

(Respondent comment)

A critical success factor will be the establishment of interoperable trust among ecosystem participants, including those operating across borders. The existing UK Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework has the potential to play a central role in enabling this trust at a multi-country scale.  

To fully realise the benefits of cross-border interoperability, it must be underpinned by a robust trust infrastructure—including trust registries that apply interoperable standards at a global scale and cryptographic mechanisms to authenticate and manage participants.  

Alongside shared assurance standards and legal interoperability agreements, these components will provide the foundation for the secure, reliable exchange of credentials and consumer data across jurisdictions.

(Respondent comment)

The main international partner respondents wanted to see increased UK collaboration with was the EU (cited by 25% of respondents), but broader collaborations were also supported:  

• “It needs either a group discussion and agreement through something like the Global Digital Collaboration or bilaterals between countries or blocks such as the European Union.” 

• “Cooperation with EU and other governments on the adoption of interoperable standards and procedures.” 

Some comments relating to digital credentials and attributes focused on legal status, liability and acceptance, with respondents wanting the government to: 

• “Clearly [define] the legal status of digital credentials and signatures used cross-border” 

• “Provide clarity on liability and compliance in cross-border scenarios…” 

• “Provide clear instructions to our clients that these [standards around what will be accepted] are valid”  

Some respondents focused on government-issued credentials and wallets, with calls for the government to:  

• “[Provide] verified attributes across different services” 

• “Support the development of secure, user-controlled identity wallets”  

• “[Provide] electronic onboarding… which could then be shared to organisations” 

Some saw the potential for the UK government to play a leadership role, domestically and internationally: 

• “We consider that there is huge potential for the UK to lead in this (interoperable frameworks)” 

• “Lead by example in the public sector, by accepting international digital identities in services like business registration and compliance.” 

For the two respondents that did not want to see a government role in enabling cross-border use of digital identities and credentials, reasons of policy direction and independence were cited: 

• “Depend[ing] on the UK government’s approach, it could be an enabler or it could be a barrier.” 

• “Yes and no, independent neutral third party certified providers are likely better placed.” 

5.1  Priority countries and regions 

Out of the 25 responses to which countries or regions should be prioritised when developing the use of international digital identity services, the majority suggested that the UK prioritise relationships with Europe when developing international approaches to digital identity, with:  

• 76% (19 responses) proposing to prioritise enabling inbound acceptance of identity services into the UK from Europe 

• 52% (13 responses) proposing to enable outbound acceptance of services from the UK to Europe.  

Wider international partnerships remained significant however, with 10 responses suggesting enabling the use of digital identity services inbound to the UK from outside of Europe and 7 responses suggesting enabling the use of these products and services outbound from the UK to outside of Europe. 

Table 9 

Countries or regions respondents think should be prioritised	% of respondents	Count
		Base: 25
Inbound to the UK from Europe	76%	19
Outbound from the UK to Europe	52%	13
Inbound to the UK from outside of Europe	40%	10
Outbound from the UK to outside of Europe	28%	7
Don’t know	12%	3

6.  Benefits of increased international use of digital identities and credentials 

If digital identities can operate securely and with trust across borders, the UK digital identity market would benefit significantly. It would enable UK providers to expand internationally, boost adoption of global standards, and reduce onboarding friction for cross-border trade and services. Sectors like fintech, payroll, and reg-tech would accelerate, while legacy identity models would be disrupted. The UK could also strengthen its position as a global leader in digital identity governance, provided it aligns with international frameworks and promotes interoperability.

(Respondent comment)

When asked to describe the effects on UK digital identity market if digital identities can be made to work securely and with trust across international borders, 30 companies provided a free text answer. These responses were categorised, with a summary of themes from responses below. 

The most frequently cited benefits were: 

Table 10 

Theme	% of respondents	Count
		Base: 30
Operational efficiency and reduced costs	40%	12
Improve user experience and increase adoption	37%	11
Market expansion	30%	9
Economic growth	27%	8
Fraud reduction and security	23%	7
Promote UK leadership	17%	5
Innovation	13%	4
Standards adoption and regulatory alignment	10%	3

Respondents highlighting operational efficiency and reduced costs cited reasons including: 

• “Less friction for businesses when transacting.” 

• “It would simplify cross border compliance for international companies”.  

On user experience and trust, respondents commented that global use of digital identities would help “simplify digital ID for individuals” and “greatly increase the use and give definitive trust in the credentials being presented.” 

Reasons given for market expansion included, in the words of one respondent, “increased global competitiveness [as] UK businesses would be better positioned to access international markets and services”.  

If digital identities can operate securely and with trust across international borders, the UK digital identity market stands to gain significantly through increased innovation, investment, and global relevance. It would enhance the competitiveness of UK-based providers, enable smoother cross-border trade and financial services, and attract international partners seeking interoperable solutions. For citizens and businesses, it would reduce friction in international transactions—such as onboarding, compliance, and access to services—while fostering user trust and regulatory alignment. Ultimately, it would position the UK as a key player in the global digital economy and digital trust ecosystem.

(Respondent comment)

Some respondents focused on the opportunities of UK leadership, with increased attractiveness of the UK market by non-UK operators making:  

• “the UK [an] easy place to access services digitally and increasing attractiveness of working with / coming to the UK, ultimately leading to significant economic growth.” 

• “the UK a great country to do business with, and further drive GDP growth by ensuring a safe, simple and secure way to prove identity.” 

Enabling international cross-border interoperability of digital identity ecosystems would have a significant and multifaceted impact on the UK digital identity market. Private sector participation within a trust framework—enabling the international issuance and acceptance of trusted attributes (such as employment status, qualifications, and professional licenses)—will likely reshape existing business models and unlock new opportunities for innovation, scalable service delivery, and global expansion. This is especially important for the UK to establish itself as one of the first movers in the emerging global identity and attributes landscape.

(Respondent comment)

The UK has a golden opportunity to regain its position as a financial services and trade leader by playing a pivotal role in enabling transactions. You need a strong global identity infrastructure to allow transactions to be processed globally. The UK will be positioned to take that role.

(Respondent comment)

Reduction of fraud and increased security of the system and services offered was cited by several respondents, who mentioned “reduced fraud through use-case onboarding processes” and “safer privacy enhanced digital ecosystem for users and online services.” 

As digital identity systems become globally interconnected, institutions, businesses, and citizens are vulnerable to attacks by bad actors using AI-generated deepfakes to conduct financial scams, cybersecurity hacks and intellectual property thefts. Easily scalable and low-cost AI tools have opened doors for both good and bad applications.   “With the surge in AI and deepfakes, we believe that “good” AI such as deepfake detection tools are needed to combat “bad” AI and, when coupled with a harmonized framework of reliable, scalable and interoperability standards,  play a critical role in ensuring public security and trust in our interconnected digital economy, mitigating fraud and other harms to governments, companies and citizens and protecting marginalised groups (i.e., those without traditional IDs). 

(Respondent comment)

7. Conclusion and next steps 

This report provides a snapshot of stakeholder perspectives on the international use of digital identities and credentials, highlighting both opportunities and persistent barriers.  

Although the survey’s limited sample size means the findings should not be considered representative of the sector as a whole, the views expressed by respondents still provide a valuable input into DSIT’s policy-making in this area. 

The findings from this survey will inform DSIT international strategy on the cross-border use of digital identities and attributes, and follow-up communication and open policymaking with stakeholders, including through the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (OfDIA) blog. 

OfDIA is grateful for the input of all those who responded and is seeking to repeat survey activity in future years, aiming for wider participation to strengthen the evidence base.

8. Annex A: Survey Questions 

1. Are you responding as an organisation or an individual?  

• Organisation  
• Individual  

2. What is the name of the organisation you are responding on behalf of?   Please note that you are not required to respond to this question.   

[open text] 

3. Where is your organisation headquartered? 

[open text] 

4. Is your organisation certified against the UK Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework? 

• Yes  
• No  
• Don’t know 
• Prefer not to say 

5. What products or services does your organisation offer?  (Select categories that capture what you offer. Select all applicable categories)   

• Age Assurance (e.g., age verification, age estimation) 
• Background Screening (e.g., DBS, criminal records, sanctions)  
• Biometric & Liveness Checks (e.g., facial matching, presence detection)  
• Digital Certificates (e.g., SSL, identity attributes)  
• Digital Identity Wallets (e.g., secure credential storage) 
• Electronic Signatures (e.g., eSignatures)  
• Electronic Seals  
• Electronic Time Stamps  
• Electronic authentication registered delivery services  
• Document Verification (e.g., passports, licenses)  
• Financial & Address Verification (e.g., bank validation, proof of address) 
• Identity & Consent Management (e.g., privacy controls, data rights)  
• Identity Data & Analytics (e.g., risk scoring, identity data)  
• Identity Orchestration (e.g., system integration)  
• Professional & Credential Verification (e.g., qualifications)  
• Right to Rent Checks  
• Right to Work Checks  
• DBS Checks  
• Other (please specify) 
• Don’t know  
• Prefer not to say  

6. RECONTACT DSIT value the views of their stakeholders. If you are happy to be contacted to discuss international use of digital identities further, please indicate this below.  

• I am happy to be contacted  
• I am not happy to be contacted  

6.1 (If yes) Please provide your email address in the space below. 

[open text] 

7. Thinking about your organisation’s digital identity related activity, does your organisation currently operate internationally? 

• Yes 
• No  
• Don’t know 
• Prefer not to say 

7.1 (If yes) What percentage of your organisation’s digital identity related activity is international? 

• 0 
• 10 
• 20 
• 30 
• 40 
• 50 
• 60 
• 70 
• 80 
• 90 
• 100 

7.2 (If yes) Which countries or regions is your organisation’s international digital identity activity in? 

• Inbound to the UK from Europe 
• Outbound from the UK to Europe 
• Inbound to the UK from outside of Europe 
• Outbound from outside of Europe 
• Don’t know  
• Prefer not to say  

7.3 (If yes) In what sector is your organisation’s international digital identity related activity in? 

• Financial 
• Healthcare 
• Technology and digital 
• Retail and customer services 
• Infrastructure and industry 
• Education and social 
• Gaming and entertainment 
• Automative and transports 
• Compliance and verification  
• Other industries 
• Don’t know  
• Prefer not to say 

7.4 (If yes) Does your organisation benefit from international digital identity related activity? 

• Yes   
• No   
• Don’t know  
• Prefer not to say  

7.4.1 (If yes) What benefits does your organisation experience from international digital identity related activity? 

• Business or market expansion   
• Reduced costs   
• Efficiency gains   
• Enhanced security   
• Enhanced trust   
• Simplified compliance   
• Other   
• Don’t know  
• Prefer not to say 

7.5 (If no, don’t know or prefer not to say) Thinking about your organisation’s digital identity related work, are there any potential benefits to your organisation from operating internationally? 

• Yes    
• No     
• Don’t know     
• Prefer not to say    

7.5.1 (If yes) What do you consider the potential benefits to be?  

• Business or market expansion   
• Reduced costs   
• Efficiency gains  
• Enhanced security   
• Enhanced trust   
• Simplified compliance   
• Other   
• Don’t know 
• Prefer not to say 

7.6 (If yes) What conditions need to exist for your organisation to maximise digital identity use across national borders? 

[Open text] 

8. Thinking about your organisation’s digital identity activity, are there barriers to operating across international boundaries?  

• Yes   
• No   
• Don’t know     
• Prefer not to say    

8.1 (If yes) What are the barriers? 

• Regulatory diversity between countries   
• Disparate systems   
• Security risks   
• Lack of agreed terminology and common concepts   
• No market or economic incentive   
• Cultural and social   
• Financial   
• Technical challenges   
• Other   
• Don’t know 
• Prefer not to say 

9. Thinking about digital identity, which specific sectors do you foresee are or will be of the highest value to your organisation when they can be achieved securely across international borders? 

• Financial      
• Healthcare    
• Technology and digital    
• Retail and customer services     
• Infrastructure and industry     
• Education and social    
• Gaming and entertainment     
• Automative and transports     
• Compliance and verification     
• Other industries    
• Don’t know   
• Prefer not to say   

10. Does the UK government need to be a part of enabling the effective use of international digital identity services?  

• Yes     
• No   
• Don’t know     
• Prefer not to say     

10.1 (If yes) What specific actions or policies would your organisation like to see from the  UK government to support the effective use of international digital identity services?  

[open text] 

10.2 (If yes) Which countries or regions does your organisation think should be prioritised when developing the effective use of international digital identity services? 

• Inbound to the UK from Europe    
• Outbound from the UK to Europe     
• Inbound to the UK from outside of Europe    
• Outbound from the UK to outside of Europe   
• Don’t know 
• Prefer not to say 

10.3 (If no) Why does your organisation think the UK government does not need to be part of enabling the effective use of international digital identity services? 

[open text] 

11.  What do you think will be the effects on the UK digital identity market if digital identities can be made to work securely and with trust across international borders? 

[open text] 

12. Are there any other comments your organisation would like to make about the future use of digital identities across international borders? 

[open text]