Two Studies — and What Needs to Be Built Next in Switzerland
The new HSLU study shows where organizations in Switzerland currently stand when it comes to digital identities and electronic credentials. The PwC study complements this with an international system perspective. One thing becomes particularly clear: for the next phase, technical infrastructure alone is not sufficient. What is needed is orientation, shared learning, understandable adoption pathways, and sustainable funding for the functions that make an ecosystem usable and interoperable.
The new HSLU study provides a current assessment of digital identities and electronic credentials in Switzerland. The PwC study adds an international system perspective. Together, they highlight—each in its own way—what matters in the next phase: not only the availability of infrastructure, but the ecosystem conditions under which real value, orientation, and interoperability can emerge.
The HSLU study shows where organizations in Switzerland stand today. Digital identities and electronic credentials are already a topic in many organizations. At the same time, it becomes clear that there is still significant need for classification, integration perspectives, trust, governance, and understandable adoption pathways. This is not unusual before broader adoption. What matters is that these aspects can already be clearly identified.
The PwC study looks at a different level. It examines, from an international comparative perspective, which factors make digital identity systems viable. These include not only technical foundations, but also institutional anchoring, governance, usability, integration into real-world processes, and the ability to enable adoption across different stakeholder groups. For Switzerland, this perspective is valuable because it shifts the focus beyond infrastructure to the actual conditions for effectiveness.
Taken together, both perspectives form a consistent picture. Technical infrastructure is a necessary step—but it is not sufficient. What will be decisive is whether organizations understand how to position themselves, which adoption pathways are realistic, how to build initial experience, and how individual activities can gradually evolve into a connected and interoperable ecosystem.
At this point, functions that are often not at the center of the debate become increasingly important. These include orchestration, structured learning and exchange formats, clear and connecting use cases, pilot projects with shared learning value, and forms of ecosystem discovery that make visible what already exists, what is still missing, and where reuse is emerging.
These functions are not “add-ons” for later—they are part of the next phase of development. Especially in a distributed ecosystem with diverse roles, maturity levels, and interests, mechanisms are needed that create orientation, make transitions between ambition levels understandable, and prepare experiences in a way that makes them usable for others.
This also applies to initiatives such as a launchpad. Their role is not to duplicate existing infrastructure, but to support the intermediate layer where organizations orient themselves, define initial use cases, develop shared artifacts, and gradually derive concrete adoption pathways from abstract possibilities. Particularly relevant are use cases and proofs of concept where the focus is not on showcasing, but on shared learning and clear transferability.
Another important aspect is the visibility of the ecosystem itself. If actors cannot recognize which credentials, role models, services, and building blocks already exist—or where gaps remain and which pathways are emerging—the system remains difficult to navigate. Ecosystem discovery is therefore not a secondary function, but a prerequisite for making an ecosystem understandable and capable of evolving.
Notably, these functions are often not sustainably funded. For technical components or individual products, funding and responsibility can usually be assigned relatively clearly. More difficult are those functions that benefit many but cannot easily be attributed to a single owner or business model. These include orchestration, cross-sector activation, discovery, shared reference patterns, governance artifacts, and structured learning formats.
This leads to a straightforward conclusion: if Switzerland wants its trust infrastructure to become more than just technical availability, these enablers must be recognized as essential development functions and supported accordingly. Otherwise, the gap between available infrastructure and broader interoperability will remain.
As products and services mature, some aspects will become easier. The more market-ready offerings emerge on this foundation, the easier it will be for additional organizations to get started. However, the more advanced potential lies beyond this—particularly where verifiable data flows are embedded in closer relationships with customers, partners, and suppliers, enabling new forms of digital capability.
The two studies do not provide a ready-made roadmap. But they clearly show what kind of development work is needed in the next phase. This includes not only technology and regulation, but also orientation, learning capability, visible development pathways, and the sustainable funding of those functions that make an ecosystem understandable and interoperable.
Links to the studies
HSLU-Study:
Weingärtner T., Kustor N. (2026) «Digitale Identitäten und elektronische
Nachweise in der Schweiz 2026» Hochschule Luzern, Rotkreuz, Schweiz
PwC-Study:
PwC, Strategy& (2025) «Digital Identities Across the World: Approaches, Challenges and Best Practices» PwC, Global Study
