SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth | SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure | SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
Ministry of Finance | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) | Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT)
The UK Department for Business and Trade has published a report titled The Future of Smart Data: Developing Governance Models that defines Smart Data as the secure, customer-consented sharing of data with Authorised Third-party Providers (ATPs) to drive innovation and competition. To manage this complex transition, the report identifies 32 core governance functions—ranging from technical standards development to consumer redress—and recommends a federated governance model as the most practical medium-term solution. This approach ensures that sector-specific needs are balanced with a central coordinating body to prevent fragmented regulatory landscapes.
Operational Pillars and Sector Priorities The proposed architecture relies on the synergy between three distinct types of actors to manage eight priority sectors, including finance, energy, telecommunications, and agrifood:
Sector-Specific Implementation Entities (SSIEs): Formally appointed bodies that lead the delivery of Smart Data schemes, ensuring tailored solutions for unique sectoral challenges.
Smart Data Coordination Entity (SDCE): A central office within the government that provides mandatory guidelines and centralized services, such as a unified ATP accreditation process, to reduce cross-sector duplication.
Sector Regulators: Statutory bodies that enforce compliance with data-sharing mandates within their specific jurisdictions.
Long-Term Evolution and Scalability While the federated model provides initial agility, the report suggests a transition to a more centrally-led model in the long term to achieve deeper cross-sector interoperability and cost efficiency. A recommended five-year review cycle will allow policymakers to assess whether functions like unified customer redress or technical standards should be further centralized as the ecosystem matures. This iterative strategy aims to foster high levels of consumer and industry trust through inclusive engagement and transparent governance.
What is the difference between “Accreditation” and “Authentication” in Smart Data? Accreditation is the upstream process of assessing and formally approving an Authorised Third-party Provider (ATP) to participate in the ecosystem based on eligibility criteria like security standards and insurance. Authentication is the real-time operational process of verifying the digital identity of an ATP or a customer before a specific data exchange occurs, ensuring the requester is truly who they claim to be.
Policy Relevance
The UK’s Smart Data governance roadmap provides a critical benchmark for India as it expands its Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture (DEPA) beyond the financial sector.
Leveraging India Stack: India has already pioneered elements of Smart Data through Aadhaar, UPI, and the Account Aggregator (AA) Framework. The UK’s federated model offers a blueprint for India to scale the AA framework from finance into energy, telecom, and agrifood while maintaining interoperability.
Enhancing Consumer Trust: Applying the UK’s focus on tiered accreditation and standardized redress mechanisms can bridge current trust gaps in India’s decentralized data ecosystem, particularly for sensitive agrifood and energy data.
Cross-Sector Interoperability: India can adapt the UK’s “common standards with sector extensions” approach to ensure that data sharing between different “Silos of Excellence” (like health and finance) is seamless.
Global Governance Leadership: Collaboration on cross-border data-sharing standards and Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT) principles between the UK and India could set a global precedent for high-integrity Smart Data governance.
Follow the full report here: The Future of Smart Data: Developing Governance Models