Technology openness as a strategic gamble in Germany
Germany, long identified with engineering excellence and a dominant automotive industry, faces a strategic crossroads. The term “tech openness” has become a catchword for allowing multiple propulsion paths rather than committing to a single, dominant technology. On the surface, this approach seems to reduce risk. But critics argue it risks delaying a decisive move toward electric mobility and exposing German automakers to a costly, protracted transition.
Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, one of Germany’s most-cited auto commentators, and his co-author Haonan Zhu have framed the debate in stark terms. In a critical voice for Focus.de, they contend that clinging to a dual-track strategy—keeping internal combustion engines (ICE) alive while pursuing electric vehicles—might be a misstep. The concern is not about skepticism toward electrification per se but about the pace and coherence of corporate strategy as global rivals press ahead with scalable, integrated EV ecosystems.
The double path: from promise to cost center
The appeal of a two-track approach is intuitive: hedge against the risk of betting everything on a technology that could fall out of favor, while preserving jobs and supplier networks. Yet the economic arithmetic remains brutal. Transition-ready platforms, new engines, and stricter emission standards require enormous investments. When sales plateau, or shareholder expectations demand growth, the high cost of maintaining two propulsion architectures can erode profitability and threaten return on investment.
In Europe, the pressure is especially acute. The region has embraced a cleaner regulatory regime, which translates into higher development costs for new powertrains. Meanwhile, the United States presents a different picture, with certain demand for traditional engines and a different regulatory burden. Dudenhöffer points out that, in that context, the competitive pressures in Europe become a moving target: the cost of keeping ICE tech up to date while scaling EVs can weigh down balance sheets.
The global price war and the Europe spillover
A central claim in the debate is the rising price pressure from abroad—most notably from China. Chinese automakers, including BYD and other brands that may not be household names in Germany, have proven capable of delivering vehicles at lower price points without sacrificing efficiency. Critics warn that this competitive dynamic will not be contained by a domestic market’s ambitions alone. If European brands continue to bear the full cost of maintaining a dual strategy, they may become more susceptible to price competition that cuts into margins and slows investment in EV ecosystems.
The argument is not merely about sticker price. It’s about the long tail of capital expenditure: new battery components, advanced drivetrains, software platforms, and the integration of automated systems. When these investments are funded against a backdrop of uncertain demand or eroding margins, the risk of underperformance rises. The concern is that a prolonged double-track approach could “saw the branch” Germany sits upon—its leading position in automotive engineering.
Implications for suppliers and Germany’s industrial base
The knock-on effects reach beyond the OEMs. Suppliers—the backbone of Germany’s industrial prowess—face a conundrum: invest heavily to support both ICE and EV programs, or risk becoming stranded as markets reallocate capital toward one clear future. The result could be higher volatility in supplier selection, consolidation moves, and potential job dislocations. In a sector where the supply chain is tightly coupled with national economic performance, the stakes extend from quarterly earnings to regional competitiveness and trade balance.
What comes next for Germany’s automakers?
Policy clarity is a recurring plea from executives and analysts alike. If the industry is to harmonize investment with market demand, a coherent roadmap that aligns regulatory incentives, charging infrastructure development, and commercial strategy is essential. Without such clarity, the debate over tech openness may remain a political and economic headwind rather than a productive framework for innovation.
Ultimately, the central question is whether Germany will master a unified electrification strategy or drift toward a perpetual hybrid model. The outcome will shape not only the competitiveness of German automakers but also the health of Europe’s broader climate goals, the resilience of its industrial base, and the future of mobility itself.
