This study examines how staff members from CoreTrustSeal-certified repositories characterize the primary value of Trustworthy Digital Repository certification, addressing a gap in empirical research about the value and/or benefits of certification.
A survey was conducted with staff members from CoreTrustSeal-certified repositories in 2020. Of the 171 certified organizations contacted, 88 completed responses were analyzed (53.98% response rate). Qualitative data from open-response questions about certification value underwent three-cycle coding analysis using NVivo, with interrater reliability checks conducted for the first two coding rounds.
Repository staff identified both internal and external certification benefits. Internal value derives from the certification process itself, including improved accountability, documentation, shared understanding, and risk mitigation. External value stems from having achieved certification, encompassing stakeholder communication, demonstrating trustworthiness, and competitive advantage. Notably, many respondents characterized certification as guaranteeing long-term preservation. Some grounded this guarantee in substantive improvements prompted by certification, while others located it in the credential itself. Both orientations reflect an inflated understanding of the structural assurances certification provides, or assurance inflation.
This provides the first comprehensive empirical examination of how staff from CoreTrustSeal-certified repositories value certification, identifying internal and external benefits. The study introduces the concept of assurance inflation, revealing how institutional stakeholders may overstate structural assurance guarantees, contributing new theoretical insights to research on trust and structural assurance in digital repositories.
Introduction
Digital repositories are entrusted with the care of valuable digital information. Many repositories have a mission focused on the long-term preservation of that information. Achieving certification as a Trustworthy Digital Repository (TDR) is one way that those repositories demonstrate their ability to carry out that mission of long-term preservation (e.g. Corrado, 2019). The CoreTrustSeal Trustworthy Data Repository Certification (CTS) is one such certification. Repositories that achieve CTS certification must demonstrate compliance with the CTS requirements, which “describe the characteristics required to be a trustworthy repository for digital data and metadata” (CoreTrustSeal Standards and Certification Board, 2022, p. 4).
While the criteria for certification are well described, the impact of having achieved certification on a digital repository has received less attention. This is understandable given that CTS is a relatively new certification compared to other TDR standards (e.g. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems Secretariat, 2024; nestor Working Group Trusted Repositories – Certification, 2009). Claims about the value and/or benefits of certification have yet to be fully examined.
To understand the value that staff members from CTS-certified repositories place on certification, I conducted a survey that asked respondents to describe the primary value of certification. In this article, I ask the following research questions:
How do staff members from CoreTrustSeal-certified repositories characterize the primary value of TDR certification?
Which types of value can be attributed to the process of becoming certified, and which to having obtained certification?
In this study, I find that staff from CTS certified repositories perceive certification as providing both process-oriented internal benefits (accountability, documentation, shared understanding) and outcome-oriented external benefits (stakeholder communication, competitive advantage, community standards). However, the findings also show that nearly one-third of respondents characterized certification as providing guarantees of long-term preservation – assurances that extend well beyond what the certification process can realistically deliver. Drawing on structural assurance theory from information systems research, I argue that CTS certification functions as a trust-enabling mechanism that creates institutional safeguards for repository stakeholders. Yet the gap between actual and perceived assurances represents what I term “assurance inflation,” a phenomenon in which institutional actors overstate the guarantees that structural assurance mechanisms provide. This finding has important implications for understanding how trust develops in digital preservation contexts and raises questions about whether repository stakeholders possess realistic expectations about what repository certification can and cannot guarantee and how to evaluate and communicate the value of certification.
Literature review
Trustworthy digital repositories and the CoreTrustSeal trustworthy data repository certification system
The Open Archival Information System (OAIS) model forms the basis for several TDR certification processes that evaluate how well a digital repository conforms to the OAIS model, including nestor, ISO 16363, and CTS (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems Secretariat, 2024; CoreTrustSeal Standards and Certification Board, 2022; nestor Working Group Trusted Repositories – Certification, 2009). This article focuses on CTS, which is the TDR certification with the largest community of certified repositories (CoreTrustSeal, 2025a).
CTS certification requires that staff members of digital repositories prepare documentation to demonstrate compliance with a checklist of sixteen requirements. Once certified, they must renew every three years. The certification requirements are also updated on a regular basis (CoreTrustSeal Standards and Certification Board, 2019, 2022). Members of the CTS Board have published articles describing the history of the certification (Dillo and De Leeuw, 2018) and its journey from creation to a sustainable certification system (L'Hours et al., 2019). More recent developments include work that proposes to introduce levels of preservation to CTS in order to make the certification legible and attractive to a broader range of digital repositories (Recker et al., 2024). Much of the scholarship about CTS comes from people involved in the creation and/or maintenance of the certification, with the goals of informing the community about developments, and advocating for the certification system (e.g. Dillo and De Leeuw, 2018; L'Hours et al., 2019, 2024; Lin et al., 2020; Mokrane and Recker, 2019; Recker et al., 2024; von Stein et al., 2018).
Another category of literature about CTS comes from staff members of repositories that have undergone certification (e.g. Key et al., 2023; Kleemola et al., 2020; Magnuson and Thomas, 2023; Pegelow et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020), repositories that have conducted self-audits using the CTS checklist (e.g. Lockhart et al., 2024), and conference presentations about self-audits using the CTS checklist (e.g. Conzett, 2021; Downs et al., 2018; Lyle, 2019; Petters and Pisharoti, 2019; Weaver, 2018; Zarnitz, 2019). Some repository staff members have also used the CTS requirements as guidance for repository creation, design, and/or improvement (e.g. Boock et al., 2019; Medina-Smith, 2021; Pisharoti and Petters, 2019).
TDR certification is largely an exercise in risk assessment (e.g. Corrado, 2019; Dillo and De Leeuw, 2018; Frank, 2020, 2022a; Frank et al., 2024). However, trust has been the primary focus of scholarship about CTS (e.g. Donaldson and Russell, 2023). Furthermore, scholarship about CTS tends to take a positive view of the certification (Crabtree, 2020; Donaldson, 2020; Donaldson and Russell, 2023; Gonzalez et al., 2024; Lindlar and Rudnik, 2019; Lindlar and Schwab, 2019; Peng et al., 2022). Across the literature that focuses on trust or trustworthiness (e.g. Corrado, 2019; Donaldson, 2020; Kleemola et al., 2020), there is an underlying assumption that becoming certified does indeed indicate trustworthiness for long-term digital preservation (Crabtree, 2020; Donaldson and Russell, 2023; Kindling et al., 2023; Kleemola et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020; Lindlar and Rudnik, 2019; Mathers and L'Hours, 2020; Mokrane and Recker, 2019). That is, that the CTS process delivers on its promise of evaluating whether a repository is worthy of stakeholder trust with regard to its mission of long-term digital preservation (Recker et al., 2024).
Value of certification
The CTS website provides information about how those who administer the certification view its value. In a page titled “Why Certification,” a series of value propositions are set forth with the goal of recruiting new repositories to become certified (CoreTrustSeal, 2023). In order to make the case that repositories should invest the time and resources required into becoming certified, arguments include: the ability to demonstrate trustworthiness to users and funders, the value of review by an external audit team, a better understanding of and/or improvements to data processes, increased transparency, awareness of digital preservation standards, reputational benefits for the repository, and that CTS certification can serve as a foundation for more stringent certification in the future (CoreTrustSeal, 2023).
In short, CTS certification is described as a process whose value is both internal and external for a repository, with an emphasis on communication and education about best practices in digital preservation and how well a repository meets those standards, the benefits of official certification by an external group of auditors, and the certification process creating a foundation for improvements and additional certifications.
While many publications about CTS describe the value and/or benefits of certification, most are explanations of specific repository experiences that are not meant to be generalized (e.g. Key et al., 2023; Kleemola et al., 2020; Lindlar and Schwab, 2019; Lockhart et al., 2024; Magnuson and Thomas, 2023; Pegelow et al., 2021). Lindlar and Schwab (2019) developed a taxonomy of benefits based on an extensive review of the literature, but found that many were not applicable to their repository, leaving some questions about whether the purported benefits of certification are realistic.
Another theme in the discussion of certification benefits is alignment with other frameworks such as the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) (e.g. Crabtree, 2020; Huigen et al., 2020; Kindling et al., 2023; Kleemola et al., 2020; Mathers and L'Hours, 2020; Mokrane and Recker, 2019; Recker et al., 2024), the TRUST Principles (Transparency, Responsibility, User focus, Sustainability and Technology) (e.g. Gonzalez et al., 2024; Lin et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2022), the DINI (Deutsche Initiative für Netzwerkinformation) Certificate for Open Access Repositories and Publication Services (Ernst et al., 2020), and data management plan (DMP) requirements from research funders (Kim, 2020). Scholarship in this area suggests that a key value of CTS certification is alignment with best practices, standards, and principles associated with digital preservation.
Scholarship has also been critical of claims about the benefits of CTS certification. Some focus on the lack of guidance for conducting an audit, noting that inconsistency in the process and/or the latitude that reviewers have to interpret CTS requirements troubles certification outcomes (e.g. Crabtree, 2020; Kindling et al., 2023; Lindlar and Rudnik, 2019). Crabtree (2020) found that the subjectivity present in the application of CTS requirements by reviewers did not have a significant impact on audit results, but also argued that training was needed for those same reviewers. Concerns about how the requirements are implemented suggest that the benefits of CTS certification can be realized via self-assessment rather than formal certification (Kleemola et al., 2020).
Other critiques have argued that the CTS requirements are not applicable to the full range of digital repository types that seek certification, such as institutional repositories (e.g. Bongiovanni et al., 2019; Key et al., 2023). Cultural context is another area in which critiques arise. Some have argued that TDR standards such as CTS do not take the social, political, and infrastructural context of under-resourced regions into account (Seles, 2016; Seles et al., 2016). These critiques have been addressed at least partly by recent developments to introduce curation and preservation levels to CTS (Recker et al., 2024). A similar critique from Donaldson (2020) has argued that while trust is an important aspect of branding for repositories, we do not know if TDRs are better at preserving digital content long-term than other repositories, or if becoming certified improves digital preservation outcomes for digital repositories.
The general picture is one in which stakeholders in the CTS certification system describe CTS as having value as both a process and an outcome. Becoming certified has value for repositories, and being certified also has value. While there are reasons to be critical of CTS, overall the system is one that demonstrates a commitment to improvement and to meeting the evolving needs of the digital preservation community (e.g. Mokrane and Recker, 2019; Recker et al., 2024). Missing from the scholarship reviewed above is empirical research about the claims of value made by CTS stakeholders.
Structural assurance and trustworthy digital repositories
Research on trustworthy digital repositories has long relied on standards, audit, and certification to define what repositories should do to merit trust (e.g. Berman et al., 2008). What this body of work has often lacked is a clear conceptual account of, or explicit link between scholarship about, how formal certification relates to the development of trust among repository stakeholders. The concept of structural assurance helps to supply that account. In the information systems literature, structural assurance refers to institutional safeguards (such as regulations, certifications, and legal frameworks) that make an environment seem safe enough for trust and action under uncertainty (Gefen et al., 2003; McKnight et al., 2002; Pavlou et al., 2003; Sha, 2009). These safeguards are especially important in situations where users cannot directly inspect the actor or service they rely on. Rousseau et al. (1998) argued that structural assurance mechanisms can support the critical mass of trust needed to sustain ongoing risk-taking behavior. However, Sitkin and Roth (1993) cautioned that such mechanisms cannot restore trust once it has been lost, suggesting that structural assurance has inherent limitations as a trust-building strategy.
Early repository scholarship focused on establishing formal assessment frameworks such as TRAC and ISO 16363, creating ways for repositories to demonstrate reliability through evidence and external review (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, 2012; Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems Secretariat, 2024; Witt et al., 2012). These frameworks provided a mechanism to evaluate or inspect a particular notion of trustworthiness, but they did not by themselves explain how Designated Communities interpret or respond to such claims. User-centered studies sought to address that gap. Prieto (2009) distinguished technical trustworthiness from users' perceptions of trust, while Yoon (2013) showed that users build trust from a broader set of cues, including organizational attributes, repository processes, peer recommendations, and prior experience. Yakel et al. (2013) extended this line of work by showing that users associate repository trust with transparency, sustainability, institutional reputation, and process quality, rather than with formal compliance alone.
Against this background, recent scholarship from Yakel et al. (2024) marks an important development because it explicitly imports structural assurance into repository trust research. Their study found that structural assurance was positively associated with data reuser trust, alongside integrity and identification, and operationalized the concept in terms of repository policies, certifications, and institutional affiliations (Yakel et al., 2024). This provides support for treating certification as one contributor to repository trust rather than as trust itself. That interpretation is also consistent with work on repository certification more directly. Corrado (2019) argued that certifications such as CTS can help build a foundation for trust, while Donaldson (2020) showed that repositories vary in how clearly they communicate certification through seals, statements, and audit information. Certification therefore functions as structural assurance because it is external, rule-bound, and potentially visible to stakeholders, but its effect depends in part on how legible that assurance is in practice (Corrado, 2019; Donaldson, 2020).
Although TDR certification can be understood as a form of structural assurance, the connection between certification and structural assurance across this body of research has been implied more often than it has been developed directly. Furthermore, existing research has largely assumed that structural assurances function as designed. That is, that the guarantees communicated by institutional mechanisms align with what those mechanisms can actually deliver (Yakel et al., 2024). The present study examines this assumption empirically by investigating how staff from CTS-certified repositories characterize the value of certification, and whether their characterizations align with the scope of assurances that certification can reasonably provide.
Research methods
This article is part of a research project whose goal is to understand how stakeholders in the CTS repository certification system construct their understanding of risk in the context of digital preservation (Frank, 2022a, 2024b; Frank et al., 2024). The present article focuses on the results of a survey of CTS certified repositories. The project also involved qualitative interviews with stakeholders in the CTS certification system. The Ethics Committee at the author's university at the time of data collection reviewed and approved this research.
Data collection
The population for this survey consisted of staff members from the digital repositories in the CTS community. After a pilot test involving cognitive walkthroughs of the survey instrument, the survey was sent to one representative from each of the 171 certified organizations with the assistance of the CTS Board in 2020. After removing incomplete responses, I analyzed 88 completed surveys, which represent a response rate of 53.98%. All respondents consented to be included in this research.
Survey questions included a mix of multiple choice, select all that apply, and ranking questions, as well as open response questions asking respondents to reflect upon their own experiences and attitudes. Questions asked respondents about their experience with repository certification, the CTS checklist requirements and digital preservation risks. The survey instrument is available Open Access via the author's institutional repository: https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/196869 (Frank, 2025).
This article focuses on one open-response question that asked respondents: In your opinion, what is the primary value of trustworthy repository certification? The question appeared toward the end of the survey, after respondents had been asked to reflect on a range of questions about digital preservation, risk, and the requirements for certification. Responses ranged from short phrases to multi-sentence reflections, with a minimum length of 1 word, a maximum length of 83 words, an average length of approximately 26.39 words, and a median length of 20.5 words.
Data analysis
Qualitative data from open-response survey questions were coded and analyzed using NVivo. I employed a 3-cycle coding approach, a modified version of Saldaña's 2-cycle approach (Miles et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2016), and carried out interrater reliability (IRR) checks for the first two rounds of coding.
The first round of qualitative coding for the certification value question examined in this article applied top-level codes from the code set summarized in Table 1. The code set consisted of a three-level code set that used deductive codes based on the survey questions and concepts from the literature and analytic frameworks, and inductive codes based on the data itself. Additional codes were added to the third-level codes in the third round of coding described below (Hennink et al., 2019). These codes were informed by previous research about TDR certification (Frank, 2020, 2022b, 2023, 2024a).
Summary of code set from first and second rounds of coding
| First level code | Second-level codes | Third-level codes |
|---|---|---|
| TDR Value | Internal Benefits | Additional Accountability |
| Create Documentation | ||
| Create Shared Understanding | ||
| External Benefits | Communication to Stakeholders | |
| Competitive Advantage | ||
| Leadership as Early Adopters | ||
| Ambivalence | n/a | |
| Costs/Negative Attitudes | Certification Not Meaningful | |
| Costs Outweigh Benefits | ||
| Problems with Implementation |
| First level code | Second-level codes | Third-level codes |
|---|---|---|
| TDR Value | Internal Benefits | Additional Accountability |
| Create Documentation | ||
| Create Shared Understanding | ||
| External Benefits | Communication to Stakeholders | |
| Competitive Advantage | ||
| Leadership as Early Adopters | ||
| Ambivalence | n/a | |
| Costs/Negative Attitudes | Certification Not Meaningful | |
| Costs Outweigh Benefits | ||
| Problems with Implementation |
I worked with another coder to conduct IRR checks for the first two rounds of coding. IRR was useful in ensuring consistency and addressing potential confirmation bias in my analysis (McDonald et al., 2019). Working together, we took a random sample of 10 responses and achieved an overall unweighted Cohen's Kappa of 0.96 for the TDR value question in the first round of coding. This score indicates a high level of agreement. The second round of coding applied the third-level codes from the TDR value framework to those same 10 responses. We achieved an overall unweighted Cohen's Kappa of 0.67, indicating an acceptable but not great level of agreement. This lower agreement level was an indication that the existing code set was not sufficient to examine this data. As a result, in the third round of coding, I delved further into the data with the goal of identifying additional categories and/or types of benefits not already present in the analytic framework. This tertiary analysis, completed by a single coder, also sought to further differentiate existing categories and/or types of benefits through an axial coding approach (Simmons, 2017). See Table 2 for the full code set developed through this process.
Updated code set after third round of coding (new codes*)
| First level code | Second-level codes | Third-level codes |
|---|---|---|
| TDR Value | Internal Benefits | Additional Accountability |
| Create Documentation | ||
| Create Opportunities* | ||
| Create Shared Understanding | ||
| Improve Repository Processes* | ||
| Risk Mitigation* | ||
| External Benefits | Alignment with Best Practices* | |
| Common Language for Colleagues* | ||
| Communication with Funders* | ||
| Communication to Stakeholders | ||
| Competitive Advantage | ||
| Demonstrate Trustworthiness to Users* | ||
| Encourage Data Sharing* | ||
| Enhance Repository Reputation* | ||
| Establish Expectations of Quality Across the Digital Preservation Community* | ||
| Leadership as Early Adopters | ||
| Ambivalence | n/a | |
| Costs/Negative Attitudes | Certification Not Meaningful | |
| Costs Outweigh Benefits | ||
| Problems with Implementation | ||
| Verify Preservation* | n/a |
| First level code | Second-level codes | Third-level codes |
|---|---|---|
| TDR Value | Internal Benefits | Additional Accountability |
| Create Documentation | ||
| Create Opportunities* | ||
| Create Shared Understanding | ||
| Improve Repository Processes* | ||
| Risk Mitigation* | ||
| External Benefits | Alignment with Best Practices* | |
| Common Language for Colleagues* | ||
| Communication with Funders* | ||
| Communication to Stakeholders | ||
| Competitive Advantage | ||
| Demonstrate Trustworthiness to Users* | ||
| Encourage Data Sharing* | ||
| Enhance Repository Reputation* | ||
| Establish Expectations of Quality Across the Digital Preservation Community* | ||
| Leadership as Early Adopters | ||
| Ambivalence | n/a | |
| Costs/Negative Attitudes | Certification Not Meaningful | |
| Costs Outweigh Benefits | ||
| Problems with Implementation | ||
| Verify Preservation* | n/a |
Survey respondents
Survey respondents were asked about the depth of their involvement in their repositories' most recent CTS audit, and were given the option to select all types of involvement that were applicable. Of the 88 respondents, the majority said that they had prepared documentation for the audit, and more than half reported direct interaction with the team of reviewers who conducted the audit. See Table 3.
Role in certification process
| Number of respondents (n = 88) | Percentage of respondents | |
|---|---|---|
| Prepared Documentation | 80 | 90.91% |
| Direct Interaction with Auditors/Reviewers | 54 | 61.36% |
| Other | 16 | 18.18% |
| Number of respondents (n = 88) | Percentage of respondents | |
|---|---|---|
| Prepared Documentation | 80 | 90.91% |
| Direct Interaction with Auditors/Reviewers | 54 | 61.36% |
| Other | 16 | 18.18% |
Of the respondents who selected “other” for their role in their repositories' certification process, most wrote in to indicate involvement in documentation preparation and many also indicated some degree of leadership in the process within their organization. A few indicated that they were not involved in their repositories' initial certification process but have since taken on responsibility for maintaining certification in the future.
The survey also investigated the level of engagement that respondents had with the CTS certification system. Respondents were asked whether they had reviewed applications for CTS certification, because reviewers in CTS are drawn from staff members of already certified repositories. When asked about review experience, approximately one-third of respondents reported that they had been a reviewer for another repository's CTS audit, and approximately two-thirds reported no review experience. See Table 4.
Review experience
| Number of respondents (n = 88) | Percentage of respondents | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 27 | 30.68% |
| No | 61 | 69.32% |
| TOTAL | 88 | 100% |
| Number of respondents (n = 88) | Percentage of respondents | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 27 | 30.68% |
| No | 61 | 69.32% |
| TOTAL | 88 | 100% |
Taken together, these two aspects of participation indicate that survey respondents had a high level of engagement with the CTS certification system and that many had engaged with the process in multiple ways.
Findings
When asked about the value of TDR certification, respondents identified both internal and external value. Internal value focused on the certification process itself (e.g. process improvements, documentation), while external value focused on what being certified could help repositories to do (e.g. communication with types of stakeholders). Respondents did not answer the question in ways that indicated ambivalence or a lack of value for certification.
Internal value
The process of becoming certified as trustworthy was internally beneficial for repositories in four ways. Respondents explained that the certification process created the additional accountability needed to help their repositories to improve processes, to create needed documentation, to create a shared understanding among staff members about repository goals and processes, and to improve risk mitigation.
Improving internal processes was consistently described as a benefit of certification, “It allows you to internally re-think about your processes, mission and capacities” (Respondent 52). This extended across policies, practices, and workflows, “improving our activities and workflow in the archive. We have also identified gaps that need to be improved for the goal of long-term data archiving” (Respondent 17). The process was not just one of evaluating current practices, but of giving repositories the opportunity and guidance to improve in order to meet the certification criteria. This held true across a range of repository policies and processes, “The primary value is that it helps us to evaluate our repository and the associated governance, processes, documentation, infrastructure, and to make them more trustworthy by providing benchmarks and guidance” (Respondent 20). This process improvement happened both in anticipation of the certification audit, but also in response to reviewer feedback, “The repository workflows and policies are reviewed by experts. The review process allows a repository to improve its workflows and policies based on this expert feedback” (Respondent 74).
Once repositories shored up their processes, they had to create high-quality documentation to communicate those processes to the auditors, “forcing the repository to document its services/work through written procedures” (Respondent 31). CTS certification involved external review of repository documentation – meaning that if it was not documented, it did not count for this process. The only way for the repository staff to communicate with the auditors was through written documentation, creating a strong incentive for the repository staff to document their policies and processes. “It gave us a great opportunity to discover our blindspots, and improve our formalized documentation describing our data management practices and repository infrastructure” (Respondent 81). This was consistently described as a benefit of the process – the investment in certification was the push that organizations needed to get staff to devote time to producing high-quality documentation of current processes for both internal use and review by the audit team. “For internal use the certification is an important tool for evaluating and documenting internal processes” (Respondent 48).
It was the additional accountability of the audit process that provided motivation for the staff of digital repositories to hold their organizations accountable to high standards. “I think the value is in the repository holding itself accountable. CTS does provide a consistent way for repositories to measure their maturity” (Respondent 15). In order to do this, Respondent 47 argued that the process demanded a critical stance toward one's own institution. “The review process requires that institutions take a look at their procedures with a critical eye along with outside evaluation” (Respondent 47). The process as a whole was described as motivating both the development and maintenance of policies and processes that would align with best practices in digital preservation. “It supports the repository in maintaining and developing high level standards in all the areas of its operations as documented in the certification guidance” (Respondent 16).
Taken together, this cycle of process improvement and documentation was one that helped organizations bring staff together with a shared understanding about their mission of long-term preservation and the policies and processes in place to ensure the trustworthiness of that work. For some respondents, this was not just a way to improve their work and bring staff together, but also to improve the profile of their repository. “The primary value is an internal one. It provides you with a means to further professionalise the organization” (Respondent 85). For others, the establishment of a shared vision of digital preservation best practices, including clear criteria and minimum requirements, was described as a key benefit of the certification process. “For me the primary value is about standards and evidence, i.e. to have a common, core level set of criteria that I can discuss with colleagues and ensure that our internal documentation is also of sufficient quality to be used as external evidence” (Respondent 04).
And finally, risk mitigation was described as an internal benefit of the certification process. Respondents argued that meeting the criteria for certification ensured that risk mitigation measures were in place to ensure the long-term preservation of their collections, “justifying the resources required to achieve [certification] and to mitigate against risks it is facing both with regards to its data assets and reputation” (Respondent 16). For others, “risk management procedures” were part of the certification requirements worth calling out specifically (Respondent 29). The overall picture is one in which the process improvements and alignment of staff contribute to better risk mitigation efforts.
Across the range of internal benefits described by survey respondents, certification is something that provides repository staff members with a reason and motivation for improvements to processes and documentation. Those updated processes and documentation in turn help to bring repository staff together by creating a shared understanding of the organization, its mission, and the shared goal of long-term digital preservation. As a result, the repository is better prepared to face potential risks.
It is worth noting that the distinction between internal and external value is not always clear-cut. Some benefits, such as reputation and alignment with community standards, can function in both directions: improving how a repository is perceived externally while also reinforcing internal confidence and organizational identity. Where benefits straddled these categories, I classified them according to the primary orientation described by respondents. That is, whether they emphasized the benefit as arising from the process of becoming certified (internal) or from the status of having achieved certification (external).
External value
Certification itself was described as beneficial for digital repositories. In contrast to the internal value, which focused on the process of becoming certified, the external value described by respondents focused on the benefits of having achieved certification. Benefits identified in this category include communication with repository stakeholders, especially with funders, the demonstration of trustworthiness to repository users and encouraging data sharing, alignment with best practices established by the community, competitive advantage, and establishing both expectations of quality and a common vocabulary across the digital preservation community.
A theme across the data was that certification was a mechanism for communicating with repository stakeholders broadly. Certification was described as a way to communicate that a repository was well prepared to carry out its mission of long-term preservation. “It is important to get a certification that demonstrates that a repository operates following best practices and standards that have been endorsed by a global community. This way, stakeholders can make an informed decision if a repository meets their expectations” (Respondent 39). The emphasis on certification as a way to communicate the quality of a repository was noted by several respondents, including Respondent 03, “The certification is an indication that the organisation meets all the necessary standards of data quality and repository.”
Two specific stakeholder groups that respondents focused on were users and funders. Certification was described as a way to appeal to future users. Respondents described certification as a way to communicate their ability to preserve content to people who would not necessarily be able to understand or evaluate the quality of their digital curation or preservation work independently. “In the area of research data, depositors need to decide where to deposit their data and they and their funders need to know whether the repository researchers have decided on is a good choice” (Respondent 37). As indicated by Respondent 37, the question of where to deposit data was viewed as important not just for individual researchers, but also for their funders.
Which leads to the next external benefit – communication with funders. Respondents focused heavily on the ways that achieving certification facilitated communication about their repository with funders. They talked about funders as organizations that could provide resources to their repository, and funders as organizations supporting research that would require data producers to deposit their data in certified repositories. In both cases, the emphasis was on certification as a way for funders to understand which repositories were worth their time and attention without having to become experts in digital preservation. “For funders it takes of the burden of having to decide what are suitable repositories and whether a repo meets common standards” (Respondent 13).
A theme across the data was speculation that at some point in the future there would be a requirement or explicit benefit for achieving TDR certification, “I assume that some kind of certification will be [in] demand in the future for being a repository. Can be used when seeking external project funding” (Respondent 31). In other cases, respondents focused on certification as something that could be used to communicate with funders about their organization in ways that would make them a more attractive target for funding, even if it was not a requirement. “The repository has better arguments in the discussions with its funders” (Respondent 71).
Respondents also believed that certification made repositories a more attractive home for data in the eyes of funders. Funders directing researchers to deposit their data in certified repositories were viewed as impactful for repositories in terms of the number of depositors and the volume of data entrusted to their care. “In the area of research data, depositors need to decide where to deposit their data and they and their funders need to know whether the repository researchers have decided on is a good choice” (Respondent 37).
Another external benefit of certification can be found at the intersection of two themes: transparency and competitive advantage. Respondents argued that becoming certified as a TDR demonstrated the repository's commitment to transparency about how their organization's practices aligned with internationally recognized best practices, providing them with a competitive advantage. Respondent 29, for example, argued that the availability of information about the trustworthiness of a repository's processes was a valuable marketing tool: “Assessment and evaluation of the quality of one's own processes, preservation strategies, technical infrastructure, organization, staff competences, financial structures, risk management procedures etc. to be used as a quality management tool and for marketing.”
The establishment of a common vocabulary and expectations of quality across the digital preservation community was described by twelve respondents as a benefit of certification. Respondent 35 noted that “the process is spreading best practice.” Similarly, Respondent 69 argued that the value of certification was setting “a common basic standard of data repositories.” Responses in this category demonstrated a commitment to being part of the digital preservation community beyond their own organization.
External benefits from TDR certification emphasized what achieving certification could do for repositories. In contrast to the process-focused internal benefits, the external benefits were about what certification could communicate to the outside world in order to help the repository bring in additional resources or to improve communication with external stakeholders.
Guarantees of preservation
In addition to the benefits described above, nearly one-third of respondents expressed some version of the same sentiment: the primary value of certification was that it provided a guarantee that their repository could preserve digital information long-term or that achieving certification guaranteed that their repository could preserve digital information long-term. These responses varied in both the strength and nature of the claims made, and can be understood along two dimensions.
First, some respondents described certification as evidence that a repository had developed the capacity for long-term preservation, “It provides an external assurance that the data repository is managing its data in a way that will maintain long-term sustainability” (Respondent 11). That is, that the process of meeting the CTS requirements had genuinely improved their infrastructure, policies, and/or organizational readiness: “With the certificate, a data centre can prove to its community that it is/works in a trustworthy manner, handles the data responsibly and that the data transferred to the data centre is securely stored and curated according to defined criteria, as well as stored and transferred to third parties in accordance with contractual provisions” (Respondent 60). For these respondents, the guarantee was grounded in the work of becoming certified and the substantive products/processes that certification prompted them to create.
Second, other respondents described certification itself as constituting the guarantee. That is, the fact of having been certified by an external body was sufficient to establish that long-term preservation was assured. Respondent 77, for example, argued that certification “proves that a repository is capable of providing long-term and safe preservation services for data users, scientific communities and data depositors.” Respondent 42 went further, characterizing certification as a “guarantee for long-term preservation of data, crisis-proof and stable technology, quality standards for data verification, ensuring long-term findability and (re-)usability of data, high service quality towards data depositors and data users.” For these respondents, the guarantee resided in the certification status itself rather than in the specific improvements it may have prompted.
While these two orientations may appear similar, they carry distinct implications. The first treats certification as a process that builds preservation readiness; the second treats it as a signal that preservation readiness exists. Both assume a level of assurance that extends beyond what CTS certification can formally deliver – CTS certifies compliance with its requirements at a given point in time, but it does not guarantee the long-term preservation of specific digital information. However, the second orientation is particularly notable because it locates the guarantee in the credential rather than in the underlying organizational capacity.
Discussion
CTS is a certification for TDRs that has been widely adopted by the digital preservation community, and which maintains a robust set of criteria against which applications are reviewed for certification (CoreTrustSeal, 2025a; CoreTrustSeal Standards and Certification Board, 2022). Despite the strong support for CTS, research is needed to understand the benefits and value of certification (e.g. Lindlar and Schwab, 2019). This study addressed the need for empirical research and examined attitudes about the value of certification among staff members of CTS-certified repositories.
In this study I asked: (1) How do staff members from CoreTrustSeal certified repositories characterize the primary value of TDR certification?; and (2) Which types of value can be attributed to the process of becoming certified, and which to having obtained certification?
I found that staff members from CTS certified repositories described the primary value of certification in terms of both internal and external benefits. Internal benefits included: providing the motivation and accountability to improve internal processes, creating high-quality documentation, holding their organization accountable to high standards, and bringing staff together with a shared understanding about their mission of long-term preservation and the policies and processes in place to ensure the trustworthiness of that work. Risk mitigation was also an internal benefit. These internal benefits were associated with the process of becoming certified as trustworthy. External benefits included: communication with repository stakeholders, especially with funders, the demonstration of trustworthiness to repository users and encouraging data sharing, alignment with best practices established by the community, competitive advantage, and establishing both expectations of quality and a common vocabulary across the digital preservation community. These external benefits were associated with having obtained certification as trustworthy. The distinction between internal and external benefits demonstrates that CTS certification has value as both a process and a signal of quality, a view that aligns with claims about CTS put forth by the CTS Board (CoreTrustSeal, 2025b).
Structural assurance and assurance inflation
As described in the literature review, CTS certification functions as a structural assurance mechanism. That is, an institutional safeguard that signals to stakeholders that a repository meets established standards (Gefen et al., 2003; McKnight et al., 2002; Yakel et al., 2024). My findings about internal and external value align with this framing: respondents described certification as creating both the organizational conditions for trustworthiness (internal) and the communicative signals of trustworthiness (external).
However, the findings also reveal a tension not accounted for in existing structural assurance research. I found that staff from CTS certified repositories described a primary value of certification as providing a guarantee of long-term digital preservation, a value which does not fall neatly into either internal or external categories. It also does not align with the language used by CTS to describe the value or outcomes of becoming certified (e.g. CoreTrustSeal, 2025b). While certification is a guarantee that a repository has met the CTS requirements, it is not a guarantee of preservation for the information in that repository.
Existing research about structural assurance in digital curation has assumed that structural assurances work as designed (Yakel et al., 2024), but my findings here show that the interpretation and communication of these assurances by institutional actors diverge from the actual scope of what can be guaranteed. Many survey respondents overstated the assurances provided by certification, by arguing that the primary value of certification is a guarantee of preservation – something that certification cannot provide.
This represents what I call assurance inflation: a phenomenon in which institutional stakeholders responsible for implementing structural assurance mechanisms overstate the guarantees that those mechanisms provide, creating a gap between actual and perceived structural assurance. Assurance inflation can occur when those who should best understand the scope and limitations of structural assurances instead communicate inflated versions of what those assurances can actually deliver. Research about the role that structural assurance plays in the development of trust in digital repositories must find ways to account for the gap between intent and interpretation of structural assurances.
Assurance inflation in digital curation and preservation suggests (1) that structural assurance mechanisms such as repository certification are vulnerable to misinterpretation and distortion by those responsible for their implementation, (2) that stakeholder trust based in part on structural assurance from repository certification may be built on a misunderstanding of what can be assured, and (3) that structural assurance operates differently across repository stakeholder groups in ways not yet understood.
While my findings do not allow for a detailed examination of how specific stakeholder groups interpret certification, the data suggest that repository staff view data depositors, alongside users and funders, as audiences for whom certification serves a communicative function. This extends the focus of Yakel et al. (2024), whose model of trust development centered on data reusers, by suggesting that the structural assurance provided by certification may also shape trust among those who contribute data to repositories. If repository staff members communicate inflated assurances about certification to these stakeholder groups, this could create trust relationships built on a misunderstanding of what certification can guarantee. This possibility is concerning because repository stakeholders such as depositors, users, and funders often lack the expertise to independently evaluate digital repository policies and processes, and may therefore have limited means of recognizing the gap between perceived and actual assurances.
Research about TDR certification, and CTS certification in particular, has focused on understanding certification from the perspective of repository staff members and other members of the digital preservation community (e.g. L'Hours et al., 2019; Lindlar and Schwab, 2019; Recker et al., 2024). By examining the value of certification through a lens of structural assurance, this study has demonstrated that further research is needed to understand whether and/or how repository certification signals structural assurance to stakeholders, whether those stakeholders understand what can be assured, and what role certification plays in decisions about continued repository use by both data depositors and data users.
Limitations
Social desirability and expectancy effects were likely present in responses, in part because the survey link was sent to respondents by the CTS Board (Bernard, 2013). Sunk cost and escalation of commitment may also have been present, since the population for this research consists of people whose organizations have gone through the costly and time-consuming process of becoming CTS certified (e.g. Dijkstra and Hong, 2019; Kajtazi et al., 2018). Finally, question phrasing may have influenced responses. Respondents were asked: In your opinion, what is the primary value of trustworthy repository certification? This question phrasing may have been interpreted by respondents as implying that certification has value.
Conclusion
This study provides the first comprehensive empirical examination of how digital repository professionals value CoreTrustSeal certification. A survey of staff members from CTS-certified repositories in which respondents were asked to identify the primary value of certification revealed a robust set of both internal and external benefits. Respondents found value in the process of becoming certified, and also in having achieved certification. I have also identified a concerning trend where many respondents characterized certification as providing guarantees of long-term preservation, a perspective that overestimates what the certification process can realistically deliver, and suggests a need for clearer communication about certification limitations (e.g. trusted vs. trustworthy) (Recker et al., 2024).
In this research, I have made practical contributions to the study of TDR certification, and theoretical contributions to research about structural assurance in digital curation. By introducing the concept of assurance inflation, I have shown that the role of structural assurance in trust development for digital repositories requires further interrogation in order to understand whether repository stakeholders understand what assurances structural elements such as TDR certification can make.
These findings have implications for the digital preservation community. Repository managers can use this evidence to build stronger, evidence-based cases for investment in TDR certification, while certification bodies such as the CTS Board should consider how to better communicate realistic expectations about certification outcomes, and explain the internal and external ways that certification can be valuable for repositories.
I argue here that CTS is an important and valuable system that provides clear benefits to both members and the digital curation and preservation community broadly. While previous research has focused on developing and applying the certification requirements, establishing and sustaining the CTS system, and creating bridges to other digital preservation frameworks, this research argues that an important part of maintaining the CTS system is the development of a robust, empirical basis for understanding the value of certification.
I would like to thank Laura Rothfritz and Maricia Mende for assistance with data collection. I would also like to thank the CoreTrustSeal Board for assistance distributing this survey to CoreTrustSeal members. Data collection for this research was funded in part by the Einstein Center Digital Future and the Berlin School of Library and Information Science at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
