Over the course of its 20-year history, the ODF standard has been adopted, or at least recommended, by numerous supranational bodies and several countries on almost every continent. However, this does not necessarily mean that the ODF standard is used in accordance with these decisions, which are often laws in their own right, as Microsoft’s substantial lobbying and misinformation campaigns aimed at protecting its revenue of around $25 billion generated by the proprietary OOXML format (DOCX, XLSX and PPTX) encourage the use of the latter. This is despite the fact that the disadvantages for national systems, communities of citizens and individuals are very easy to demonstrate: loss of control over content, interoperability problems and dependence on the commercial strategies of a single vendor.
The information in this post is based on my research into sources relating to the adoption or recommendations for the use of ODF. I began compiling this collection of documents around 2010 and continue to update it annually. Over the last twelve months, I have also used artificial intelligence in my research, which has helped me find some articles.
Unfortunately, formal adoption or recommendation of ODF does not guarantee its actual use in accordance with the law. For example, the latest version of Italy’s Digital Administration Code explicitly prohibits the use of OOXML because it is not a standard, yet this decision is largely ignored by public bodies.
SOVEREIGN BODIES
NATO requires all 28 member countries to use ODF as the standard format for document exchange.
UN and NGOs: UN organisations favour standard and open formats to ensure that all documents remain accessible and do not depend on expensive or restricted tools. This is why ODF is used for reports, policy drafts, and collaborative documentation between teams.
European Commission: has taken a strong stance in favour of open standards and promotes the use of formats such as ODF in documents through its open source software strategy. The European Parliament, the European Commission and the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) have integrated LibreOffice and ODF into their internal workflows to ensure greater transparency and language neutrality.
EUROPE
Belgium: Since September 2007, all Belgian federal government departments have been required to accept and read ODF documents, and a memorandum has established ODF as the standard for the exchange of office documents within the federal public administration.
Denmark: From 1 April 2011, the Danish Parliament has mandated the use of ODF by state authorities for the exchange and archiving of documents, whereas previously agencies were only required to accept ODF documents. In recent weeks, articles have claimed that the Danish government will formally migrate to open-source software and, therefore, to ODF. We are, of course, seeking confirmation of this project.
Finland: The Ministry of Justice and other ministries have adopted ODF as the main document format.
France: The Référentiel Général d’Interopérabilité (RGI) recommends ODF as the preferred format for office documents in public administrations. Agencies are therefore encouraged to use ODF for creating and archiving text documents, spreadsheets, and presentations.
Germany: The German Council for Information Technology Planning, representing the federal and state governments, has committed to making ODF the standard for document management in public administration by 2027. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and several federal courts already use ODF exclusively. Several federal states and municipalities have also switched to ODF-compatible office suites, such as LibreOffice and Collabora Online. ODF is cited as a core element of Schleswig-Holstein’s digital sovereignty strategy.
Italy: The Digital Administration Code only allows ODF in its guidelines for public administration, as OOXML does not meet the open standard criteria contained in the document’s glossary.
Netherlands: The Dutch government mandates the use of open standards, including ODF, for all data exchanges in the public sector, and adoption is monitored by an active political community that supports implementation.
Slovakia: All public authorities must be able to read and use ODF for electronic communication and publication of documents, including those with electronic signatures.
Spain (Andalusia and Extremadura): These regions require government agencies to use ODF (or PDF/A for static documents) for communication with each other and with citizens.
Switzerland: Government agencies are recommended to use ODF for document exchange with citizens or other agencies.
United Kingdom: In 2014, the British government adopted ODF as the sole standard for sharing and collaborating on editable documents across the public sector. The Home Office has a formal ODF adoption plan and does not reject ODF documents from citizens or businesses.
AMERICA
Argentina (Province of Misiones): The use of ODF is mandatory within government administrative organisations.
Brazil: Since 2010, proprietary formats have been prohibited in the federal public administration and ODF has been the standard for all office documents. It is mandatory in federal IT policies and is widely used in ministries and state governments. SERPRO (the federal data management service) ensures that national document workflows comply with the ODF standard.
Uruguay: public documents must use ODF for editable files and PDF for fillable forms and non-editable documents.
Venezuela: all federal government organisations must use ODF 1.0 for editable documents.
ASIA
India: India’s policy on the adoption of open standards for e-governance includes ODF as the preferred format for all federal and state services, particularly where vendor neutrality is critical for affordability and scalability.
Taiwan: The Ministry of Education has introduced ODF-compliant tools in all schools, and local governments use LibreOffice for daily administration.
AFRICA
South Africa: South Africa’s MIOS (Minimum Interoperability Standards) policy aims to ensure a future-proof digital government and access for all. It promotes open standards and lists ODF as an accepted format.
CASE STUDY
Monaco: In 2013, the city of Monaco made headlines when it migrated 15,000 desktops to Linux and OpenOffice/LibreOffice, adopting ODF. Despite positive results and significant cost savings, the project faced strong political opposition backed by the Microsoft lobby. In 2017, part of the migration was cancelled. This case is emblematic because it highlights the complexity of vendor lock-in and demonstrates the pressure that public institutions face from proprietary vendors to maintain a monopoly that is detrimental to the institutions themselves and their citizens.
