In addition to acute crises dominating the societal discourse, such as the global consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the world continues to face the ongoing challenge of limiting climate change and achieving a sustainable transformation. Yet, in public discourse, the widely used terms “sustainability” and “transformation” are not clearly defined, and the understanding varies greatly depending on the industry and the stakeholders considered. One important transformation arena lies within the German automotive industry, as it is one of the country’s biggest industrial sectors by revenue and the number of employees. In addition, the German automotive industry is currently going through a transition period due to the switch to electric drivetrains as the main propulsion technology opposed to combustion engines. Therefore, the following paper identifies the differing understandings of sustainability and according actions in the German automotive industry. Moreover, possible conflicts and prioritizations along the economic, ecological, and social dimensions of sustainability are presented based on an expert interview study. To do so, a structuring qualitative content analysis in combination with a descriptive approach was used focusing on the differing perspectives on sustainability of both the interviewees and their companies. The gathered data then allows to compare the aggregated individual and corporate sustainability perspectives in the German automotive industry, as well as comparing the sustainability perspectives of the interviewees and their respective companies case by case. The results suggest that there is a considerable discrepancy between individual and corporate understandings of sustainability. These differences can mainly be attributed to the companies’ economically driven views in contrast to the individuals’, mostly ecologically driven sustainability perspective. Moreover, several barriers and conflicts, rooted in the prioritization of economic gains, can be traced back to conflicts in the supplier pyramid. The identification of common transformation goals and measures among companies is necessary to enable a collaborative, sustainable transformation in the German automotive industry, which benefits all societal stakeholders in or attached to this sector.

1. [1] W. J. Ripple et al., “ World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency 2022,” BioScience, Vol.72, No.12, pp. 1149-1155, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac083
2. [2] UN General Assembly, “Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015: Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” pp. 6-28, 2015. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n15/291/89/pdf/n1529189.pdf [Accessed February 14, 2023]
3. [3] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), “Paris Agreement,” 2015. https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english [Accessed July 4, 2023]
4. [4] Climate Action Tracker. https://climateactiontracker.org/ [Accessed August 30, 2023]
5. [5] M. Christ and B. Sommer, “Transformation (sozial-ökologische),” D. Gottschlich, S. Hackfort, T. Schmitt, and U. von Winterfeld (Eds.), “Handbuch Politische Ökologie: Theorien, Konflikte, Begriffe, Methoden,” Transcript Verlag, pp. 461-466, 2022 (in German).
6. [6] R. Guzik, B. Domański, and K. Gwosdz, “Automotive industry dynamics in Central Europe,” A. Covarrubias V and S. M. Ramírez Perez (Eds.), “New Frontiers of the Automobile Industry: Exploring Geographies, Technology, and Institutional Challenges,” pp. 377-397, Palgrave Macmillan, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18881-8_15
7. [7] M. Krzywdzinski, G. Lechowski, J. Ferdinand, and D. Schneiß, “The German path to electromobility and its impacts on automotive production and employment,” B. Galgóczi (Ed.), “On the Way to Electromobility – A Green(er) but More Unequal Future?,” pp. 179-206, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), 2023.
8. [8] United Nations, “Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future,” 1987. https://www.are.admin.ch/are/de/home/medien-und-publikationen/publikationen/nachhaltige-entwicklung/brundtland-report.html [Accessed June 11, 2023]
9. [9] B. Purvis, Y. Mao, and D. Robinson, “Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins,” Sustainability Science, Vol.14, No.3, pp. 681-695, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
10. [10] W. B. Gallie, “Essentially contested concepts,” Proc. of the Aristotelian Society, Vol.56, pp. 167-198, 1955.
11. [11] A. Henkel et al., “Soziologie der Nachhaltigkeit – Herausforderungen und Perspektiven,” Netzwerk Soziologie der Nachhaltigkeit (SONA) (Ed.), “Soziologie der Nachhaltigkeit,” pp. 51-84, Transcript Verlag, 2021 (in German). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839451991-003
12. [12] D. Little, “Causation in the social realm,” A. Damonte and F. Negri (Eds.), “Causality in Policy Studies: A Pluralist Toolbox,” pp. 11-35, Springer, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12982-7_2
13. [13] H. Esser, “Das Modell der soziologischen Erklärung und die Paradigmen der Soziologie,” B. Schäfers (Ed.), “Sociology in Germany: Development – Institutionalization – Theoretical Disputes,” 3rd. Ed., pp. 177-190, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 1994.
14. [14] J. S. Coleman, “Social theory, social research, and a theory of action,” American J. of Sociology, Vol.91, No.6, pp. 1309-1335, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1086/228423
15. [15] K. Dröge, “noScribe.” https://github.com/kaixxx/noScribe [Accessed August 30, 2023]
16. [16] U. Kuckartz, “Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software,” SAGE Publications Ltd., 2014. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288719
17. [17] A. Fakis, R. Hilliam, H. Stoneley, and M. Townend, “Quantitative analysis of qualitative information from interviews: A systematic literature review,” J. of Mixed Methods Research, Vol.8, No.2, pp. 139-161, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813495111
18. [18] R. Klapper, L. Berg, and P. Upham, “Probing alignment of personal and organisational values for sustainability: An assessment of Barrett’s organisational consciousness model,” Sustainability, Vol.12, No.18, Article No.7584, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187584
19. [19] D. Fischer, M. Brettel, and R. Mauer, “The three dimensions of sustainability: A delicate balancing act for entrepreneurs made more complex by stakeholder expectations,” J. of Business Ethics, Vol.163, pp. 87-106, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4012-1
20. [20] R. E. Johnsen, S. Lacoste, and J. Meehan, “Hegemony in asymmetric customer-supplier relationships,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.87, pp. 63-75, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.01.013
21. [21] M. Paul, I.-L. Darkow, and H. Kotzab, “Coordination of automotive supplier networks: Different approaches towards utilizing power and trust as coordination mechanisms,” R. Bogaschewsky, M. Eßig, R. Lasch, and W. Stölzle (Eds.), “Supply Management Research: Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse 2016,” pp. 161-184, Springer, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15280-2_8
22. [22] J. Kirchherr, N.-H. N. Yang, F. Schulze-Spüntrup, M. J. Heerink, and K. Hartley, “Conceptualizing the circular economy (revisited): An analysis of 221 definitions,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol.194, Article No.107001, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001
23. [23] M. Kojima, “The diffusion of remanufacturing policies in Asia,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.16, No.6, pp. 824-830, 2022. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2022.p0824
24. [24] S. Kondoh, K. Kurakawa, S. Kato, Y. Umeda, and S. Takata, “Analysis of key success factors for eco-business through case studies in Japan,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.6, No.3, pp. 252-263, 2012. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2012.p0252
25. [25] T. Hahn, J. Pinkse, L. Preuss, and F. Figge, “Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework,” J. of Business Ethics, Vol.127, No.2, pp. 297-316, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5
26. [26] M. O’Connell and A. M. Ward, “Shareholder theory/shareholder value,” S. Idowu et al. (Eds.), “Encyclopedia of sustainable management,” pp. 1-7, Springer, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02006-4_49-1
27. [27] A. van Mossel, F. J. van Rijnsoever, and M. P. Hekkert, “Navigators through the storm: A review of organization theories and the behavior of incumbent firms during transitions,” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol.26, pp. 44-63, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.07.001
28. [28] S. N. Morioka, I. Bolis, S. Evans, and M. M. Carvalho, “Transforming sustainability challenges into competitive advantage: Multiple case studies kaleidoscope converging into sustainable business models,” J. of Cleaner Production, Vol.167, pp. 723-738, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.118
29. [29] J.-C. Tu, C.-H. Yang, and Y.-Y. Chen, “Exploring the impact of IoT and green advertising on consumer behavior,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.16, No.6, pp. 795-806, 2022. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2022.p0795
30. [30] B. Resta, S. Dotti, P. Gaiardelli, and A. Boffelli, “How lean manufacturing affects the creation of sustainable value: An integrated model,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.11, No.4, pp. 542-551, 2017. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2017.p0542