This article delves into the critical relationship between innovation, intellectual property (IP), and the evolving role of both industry players and governments in fostering a sustainable and dynamic innovation ecosystem. Drawing on insights from two distinguished experts – our founder, Dr. Thomas Leiber, an entrepreneur and innovator in automotive technologies, and Dr. Hans-Jörg Feigel, an industry veteran with deep expertise in automotive policy and IP protection – we explore how businesses and governments can create the right conditions for nurturing breakthrough innovations, protecting valuable intellectual assets, and navigating the challenges of a rapidly changing global landscape.

Dr. Leiber brings a wealth of experience in technological development and market strategies, particularly in the automotive sector, where his work in electrification and autonomous driving is helping to shape future markets. Dr. Hans-Jörg Feigel, with his extensive background in product development and innovation strategy in large corporations, including knowledge and experience in policy and regulation, offers a keen perspective on how innovation culture, intellectual property laws and government policies can either facilitate or hinder industry transformation. Together, they provide a comprehensive look at the current state of innovation, the challenges faced by established companies, and the strategies that can help both large firms and startups thrive in the face of crisis and disruption.

To begin, why do so many large, established companies still find it difficult to innovate and stay ahead of the curve despite having vast resources at their disposal?

Feigel: That’s an important question, especially in the context of the ongoing economic crisis in Germany. Innovations can be a way out of a crisis, but they are often not available in time to overcome a crisis because, in stable times, many large companies do not feel an immediate need to drive innovations.

As a result, the development of innovative products is not pursued consistently enough, particularly if the company is doing well with existing products. They succumb to the illusion that the current path will continue to succeed. However, the business processes of those companies are optimized but rigid, the business models are proven but unsuitable for disruptive changes in the market environment, and the organizations are highly encrusted, offering great resistance to necessary adjustments.

“In short: large companies are usually accustomed to success, sluggish, structurally inflexible, and bureaucratic. This makes it difficult for them to adapt when the market changes.” – Hans-Jörg Feigel

When companies are thriving, there’s a reluctance to innovate. Many companies set up innovation or research departments, but often with low expectations. If promising ideas are generated, delays and blockages can already occur in the subsequent selection process if it becomes apparent that budget shifts and contributions from other organizational areas will be necessary for implementation. It becomes particularly difficult when existing business models must be changed. The selection phase is the most challenging hurdle an idea must overcome internally. The more disruptive the idea, the higher the probability of failure. This is often because the product architecture does not align with the existing organizational structure, making cross-departmental collaboration both crucial and challenging.

So, how does a company deal with an idea whose feasibility has still to be proven and for which there is no clear responsible business area? This becomes even more critical when cooperation between business units is required to develop a product. In this case, a company-internal entrepreneur is needed – but they are rare and often lack the power to drive the innovation forward. Resources may technically be available. Still, potential innovations are frequently suffocated by internal wrangling over responsibilities, slow bureaucratic processes, and the inability to organize low-conflict cross-organizational cooperation. This is compounded by fears triggered in managers and employees when the “new” threatens to replace the “previous,” jeopardizing their career or job security. An understandable reaction, which requires far-sighted and empathetic leadership to overcome.

“A management that consistently demands “something new” from all employees across all hierarchical and functional areas actively vitalizes the culture of innovation. This keeps the company agile and encourages the establishment of new business models and processes.” – Hans-Jörg Feigel

Leiber: As a startup founder, one of the most significant challenges I faced was overcoming internal resistance within large corporations. Despite securing key connections, we often encountered significant pushback. We had to prove the viability of our ideas using our own resources before these companies would consider investing.

For one project, we found it easier to collaborate with a smaller competitor eager to innovate. However, after building a promising partnership and seeing early success, they suddenly cut ties, accusing us of misleading them. Years later, the technology we developed became a cornerstone of the market, yet the collaboration ended in frustration.

It wasn’t until much later that I understood the true motive behind their exit. The CEO’s short-term focus was on maximizing financial returns in the face of a merger and acquisition, which led them to step away from the innovation space. In contrast, our initial partner, undeterred, continued to innovate and ultimately emerged as the market leader.

Large firms’ primary obstacle to innovation is their heavy investment in existing technologies and competing goals. A Senior Vice President may want to be a pioneer, while the CEO may focus on short-term financial gain. Startups have a clear, unified vision and flexibility, while large companies often prioritize maintaining the status quo and protecting existing assets.

Large corporations typically view innovation as risky, especially when it threatens their established products. Startups benefit from being nimble and having a clear goal. However, collaboration with large companies can sometimes be a one-way street, where startups provide value but are later discarded or undercompensated. The best collaborations are those that involve continuous, two-way communication, as seen in “partnership-embedded licensing.” Unfortunately, the automotive industry often practices “standard licensing,” which ends after fulfilling basic obligations and rarely leads to lasting partnerships. Trust is often broken, making future collaborations difficult but potentially stronger if repaired over time.

In conclusion, large corporations need to rethink their approach to external innovation, seeing it as a crucial part of the R&D value chain rather than a threat.

Feigel: I agree with that. The situation is even more challenging when you look at the mindset in Germany. There’s a general reluctance to take risks, especially in established companies. In fact, the fear of failure is so ingrained in the culture that many businesses focus more on maintaining the status quo rather than investing in future growth.

Many large companies, especially in the automotive industry are facing a crisis. How can innovation serve as a solution during times of crisis, and can it risk making the situation worse?

Feigel: Innovation should be proactive, not reactive. Companies must invest in innovation before and not during a crisis when resources are already stretched thin. In times of economic stability, many businesses cut back on future-focused investments to focus on day-to-day operations, so innovation is often overlooked until it’s too late. The problem with this approach is that the resources needed to innovate are no longer available by the time a crisis strikes.

Innovations need lead time to develop. When companies wait for a crisis to demand innovation, they cannot implement the necessary solutions. During stable times, however, the resources needed for innovation are easier to secure. It’s during these times that companies should prioritize innovation, using it to drive growth, expand market share, or open new business areas.

The issue with relying on innovation solely in times of crisis is that it fosters a passive, reactive mindset. Startups often thrive in such periods because, while larger companies focus on maintaining the status quo, startups are driven by a strong desire for growth. However, if larger companies adopted a culture of continuous innovation, they could navigate crises more effectively and stay ahead of the competition. Innovation should not be seen as a reactive measure but as a proactive approach for long-term growth and resilience.

Leiber: I often think back to when my father worked in the automotive industry, where there was a strong culture of collaboration between suppliers and manufacturers. He always emphasized that innovation often comes from suppliers and that by giving them the space to grow, the entire ecosystem benefits. But today, with the prevailing “cost-cutting” mentality, companies focus on securing the lowest price rather than building long-term partnerships, ultimately stifling innovation.

A “win-lose” negotiation tactic that focuses solely on short-term results is common and often taught in negotiation courses. This approach ignores the values of honesty and integrity.

“Personally, inspired by Kirk Kinnell, I follow the WIN-WIN-WIN tactic, where the third “WIN” element focuses on fostering a long-term relationship with continuous mutual benefit. A long-term, trust-based relationship that transcends company boundaries will require a paradigm shift in the industry.” – Thomas Leiber

Feigel: You’re absolutely right. The “cheaper is better” mindset still dominates, making it difficult to form partnerships that prioritize long-term value. Now, with rising geopolitical tensions, we’re seeing the risks of being too dependent on a single market, like China, for supply chains. If we don’t adapt, entire industries, such as automotive, could face significant disruption.

Leiber: In China, businesses operate with a vertically integrated structure, which contrasts with the fragmented supply chains in Germany, as highlighted by Ford CEO Jim Farley during an interview. During times of crisis, many industry players have recognized that the old business model is no longer effective, especially as European car manufacturers face competition from lower-cost Eastern suppliers and advanced software technology from the West. For Tier 1 suppliers and OEMs to remain competitive, closer collaboration is more critical than ever. However, not everyone shares this view, as evidenced by a recent unprecedented lawsuit between a German supplier and its customer(s). Ultimately, no company will survive in isolation. Speed and cooperation are crucial, and startups, mid-sized companies, and established players must unite and set common goals to succeed.

Having established how vital innovation is, why do so many companies struggle to implement a real innovation culture?

Feigel: Creating an innovative culture is a complex and long-term process that doesn’t happen overnight. Innovation must be embedded in the company’s DNA, starting at the top. Both employees and managers need to see innovation as an integral part of their roles. While generating good ideas is the easier part of the task, moving beyond the feasibility stage to secure the necessary resources for further development is where challenges arise. The real difficulty emerges when selected ideas need additional resources to achieve sufficient maturity. At this point, conflicts of interest often become visible, particularly among middle managers who may fear that supporting innovation could undermine their position of power.

Despite the existential importance of innovation, many companies struggle to create an environment where it can thrive. Employees and managers should feel that innovation is desired and expected. When the middle management is unwilling to fully support innovation projects – often due to self-interest – it can stifle progress. This is where leadership from the top becomes crucial. Clear, entrepreneurial leadership is needed to navigate internal power struggles and ensure innovation remains on track. While defined processes can help, they are not enough alone.

“A strong culture of collaboration, driven by management’s active involvement, is essential for fostering innovation and successfully driving ideas to maturity.” – Thomas Leiber

Leiber: For me, the solution was to bring in people from diverse backgrounds and nationalities. Our team includes 15 nationalities, and these varied perspectives often lead to more creative and innovative ideas. Sometimes, the best solutions are already there but are overlooked due to a feeling of superiority or a narrow mindset.

“We’ve seen in China that others have caught up with us and surpassed us in some areas of innovation. We should be open, even eager, to learn from them.”

Though the multicultural approach may create communication barriers, it also offers excellent opportunities. This demonstrates openness to new perspectives.

Feigel: You’re absolutely right. The more you work on creating something new, the more you realize it requires both creativity and structure. When you have a small, motivated team passionate about a new product, things move quickly in the early stages. However, once the product moves into the development phase, it needs to be integrated with existing teams. The real challenge comes when the product shows the potential to be a huge success—a “million-seller.” Suddenly, everyone wants to get involved, but that’s when bureaucracy can slow everything down. If leadership doesn’t act quickly to streamline processes, it can become much harder to move forward efficiently.

Dr. Feigel, with your decades of experience in large, established companies, what are the five key tips you would give to any organization looking to build a truly innovative culture?

From my experience the most important elements would be:

1. Cultivate a Collaborative Culture: Innovation thrives in environments where collaboration is prioritized. Achieving this overnight is challenging, so start with actionable steps and build from there.
2. Encourage Entrepreneurship: Companies should create room for employees to take ownership of ideas and bring them forward.
3. Give Employees the Freedom to Innovate: Allow people to bring their ideas forward and give them the freedom to experiment without excessive oversight from management.
4. Create Dedicated Development Teams: Encourage deeper product ownership by setting up dedicated teams not hindered by bureaucratic structures.
5. Streamline Processes: Reduce unnecessary processes and bureaucracy. Companies need to prioritize speed and flexibility to stay agile and competitive.

Leiber: I fully agree, and I think a key challenge is the balance between different departments—lawyers, engineers, and salespeople. Lawyers often get in the way of innovation because they focus too much on risk; finance people, by nature, only see current costs, not future benefits. The company needs to find the right balance between risk-averse groups and those more willing to take a leap and reward risk with successful participation, e.g. business unit options.

Taking this discussion a step further what can established companies learn from newcomers in the market, and what does effective collaboration between industry veterans and young innovators look like?

Feigel: Established companies can learn the most from newcomers by opting for project-based collaborations. What they will learn from these collaborations is speed and agility. On the downside, there will be the painful realization that internal processes are incredibly slow and cumbersome; this only becomes blatantly evident when working with startups.

To make collaboration effective, an organizational structure that works well is essential. Typically, it involves having a startup representative and a larger company counterpart for each competence area driving the project forward. What’s crucial is establishing clear goals and agreements from the outset. Otherwise, conflicts will arise later due to different interests and timelines. It’s also vital to have pre-agreed terms for handling inventions. The key to success is a fair, cooperative collaboration style that emphasizes understanding and compromise.

Leiber: From the perspective of a smaller company, trust is essential when collaborating with larger firms. It’s important to have open dialogues with someone you can speak freely with. In a large organization, there are often many stakeholders with different goals, and if there’s no decision-maker with clear authority, the process becomes slow and cumbersome.

“It’s all about having a shared vision, and that’s where trust plays a huge role. Small companies are fast; large companies can scale and industrialize. Together, we can combine strengths to achieve common goals.” – Thomas Leiber

I also believe that to drive innovation and collaboration, there should be a reward system for entrepreneurial individuals in large companies. If you think about it, a pioneer at a large company faces all the risks. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. In smaller companies, there’s the opportunity to benefit from stock options and to truly be part of something bit in the long run, which isn’t the case in large corporations. Success-based compensation could encourage more people in large firms to take risks, innovate and seek collaborations.

Feigel: I agree; innovation must be recognized. If you don’t take risks, you’ve already lost.

Let’s dive into emerging markets’ role in driving future innovation, particularly in high-tech industries such as brake systems and electric vehicles. How do you see the balance between established companies and emerging markets in fostering innovation?

Feigel: The unique need for innovation in emerging markets stems from the requirement to make products affordable. If a company wants to be a player in these regions, it needs to involve local development organizations or make them even wholly responsible. Sometimes, simplifying the product and reducing specifications can open up new solutions. However, while this may work in emerging markets like India, the expectations might even be higher in China, which requires a presence in this region as well.

Lower cost structures and faster implementation supports also support global innovation, which helps to get internal approvals more easily.

Leiber: From my experience, especially during my latest visit to China (Auto China, 2024), I realized that the priorities in these markets are different. From an outsider’s perspective, comfort and multimedia are paramount, and German cars can seem outdated for the younger generation. There are entirely new concepts that aren’t yet present in the German mindset. I remember seeing long queues at a brand-new Lotus Eletre and being inspired by people’s excitement about innovation.

In India, the key is understanding what customers really need. In the brake systems industry, for example, the frictionless brake is a game-changer because it saves real money. And when it comes to electric vehicles, the focus is on the range — because the range is money. In places like India, the swapping system for batteries is a huge advantage, something that many Europeans haven’t yet considered.

Additionally, in emerging markets, there’s a multi-cultural dynamic. India, for example, has a well-educated and knowledgeable workforce. If we don’t listen to them, we miss out on a wealth of ideas.

Feigel: I agree entirely. It’s also important to understand that there is a strong desire to protect jobs in the development areas of headquarters, which can lead to reluctance to move core development tasks to emerging markets. This results in untapped potential and slows down progress. These considerations are understandable, as you need to balance the interests of your home organization while also seizing opportunities in emerging markets. In a growing environment, this balance is easier to achieve. Generally, it’s essential to recognize that true innovation often requires letting go of the old to embrace the new.

Leiber: For smaller companies like mine, this is an opportunity. I have become an interesting partner for emerging firms in countries like India because I help them develop and compete with European companies. We can build partnerships and be enablers. For instance, when I talk about a joint venture, it’s something that gains attention — that would be almost impossible in Germany. There’s a difference in mindset; there’s openness to collaboration in emerging markets. This approach offers more speed. Large companies often close themselves off in Europe, making it harder to innovate.

Feigel: That’s true. This potential would also be there for large companies, but they need to be willing to tap into it. More leaders need to see emerging markets as enablers of innovation. And this doesn’t have to be limited to Asia; there are countries with lower wage levels within Europe, like Romania, where there are brilliant engineers. It’s right on our doorstep, and companies should leverage this potential to benefit their entire enterprise while also ensuring job security at home.

Leiber: Absolutely. Also, in Europe, there’s a lot of innovation potential for startups and SMEs. However, large companies tend to shut themselves off.

Feigel: True, but I believe that once the situation becomes unsustainable, even large companies will be forced to open up due to limited financial resources. When they cannot afford in-house innovations and stagnate, there will be internal pressure to open up to collaborations.

Earlier, we discussed how innovation, a strong innovation culture, and collaboration between large companies and agile startups can help established companies navigate crises.

Taking that conversation further, do you think protecting intellectual property still makes sense in today’s globalized world, or has globalization made IP protection less meaningful?

Feigel: Patents are still being filed, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to protect them, especially against Asian countries, where intellectual property (IP) violations have historically been common. That said, IP protection remains crucial for startups, as it can often be the only way to safeguard innovations. Interestingly, as Chinese companies become more aggressive with their IP strategies, they’re not only using patents to protect their own innovations but also strategically challenging the patents of others.

In the past, some Asian countries paid little attention to intellectual property rights, but the situation has drastically changed. Today, an enormous number of IP rights are being generated in these regions, which poses significant challenges for companies in the West.

“Although enforcing IP rights in Asia is still time- and effort-intensive, the growing volume of patents being filed there indicates that the global competition for intellectual property is intensifying, which will likely cause significant problems for businesses in Europe in the near future.” – Hans-Jörg Feigel

Leiber: Exactly. IP protection is critical for small companies, even if they don’t have the same resources to defend them. But it’s not just about having patents; it’s about creating a culture where innovation is valued and leveraged.

“Many large European companies don’t fully use their patents, which is a missed opportunity.” – Thomas Leiber

Many have heard Elon Musk say that “intellectual property is for losers.” What he really meant is that if you file patents and keep innovation locked away, or if you only buy IP to enforce against infringers, you’re not genuinely creating value.

It’s essential to file patents, but even more critical to move quickly and turn them into actual products. In some cases, giving away IP for free can help accelerate market adoption or new forms of collaboration. However, any licensing should always be non-exclusive to foster the speed of adoption.

Historically, US companies have had the advantage of quick market entry due to better access to funding, a benefit not yet available in Europe. More funds should be channelled into venture capital to level the playing field, particularly in later-stage investments. This would allow start-ups and established companies to collaborate more effectively and on equal terms.

As the world becomes more interconnected, how can IP laws evolve to protect creators without stifling cross-border innovation?

Feigel: There isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to intellectual property, but aligning global standards could significantly strengthen protection. To further develop patent legislation in a globalized world, several strategies should be pursued. These include improving harmonization and introducing an international patent standard, allowing IP rights to be more easily recognized across different countries. The TRIPS agreement should be further developed to enhance patent protection. Additionally, technologies like blockchain can help document inventions, increasing transparency and traceability. Bilateral or multilateral agreements between countries could also improve cooperation in cross-border patent applications and disputes, while a global information system on existing patents would allow inventors to identify potential conflicts more easily. To enable faster decisions, bureaucratic hurdles should be reduced, ensuring a more efficient process for patent enforcement globally.

Leiber: While IP value varies by country, challenges persist. In countries like Korea, IP is often less valued, as courts tend to favor local companies. From experience, I believe this trend is also growing in German patent courts. During the Obama presidency, US IP laws became increasingly favorable to Big Tech, with industry representatives advising the government.

A promising shift is the new Unified Patent Court (UPC), seen as more innovator-friendly. Additionally, the “Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act” (PREVAIL Act) is advancing, signalling a move toward stronger protection for innovation.

Harmonizing international IP laws remains challenging, but with increasing demand for innovation, the future jurisdiction is expected to favor innovators, especially in industries where patented technologies are critical for global competition. Instead of import tariffs, introducing high penalties for deliberate patent infringement—especially when technology is copied across regions—could be an effective strategy. This approach would create a more level playing field, encouraging innovation in both Europe and China.

Finally, revenue from “patent taxes” should be reinvested directly into innovation, where it originated. The US is a good example of how private funding drives innovation more effectively than government investments.

Feigel: The global trend is shifting towards more localized policies, and international agreements seem to be losing their impact. Still, I’m optimistic we’ll eventually move toward a more unified approach.

Leiber: Currently, there is no cohesive strategy, and we see varying trends globally. Standardization and agreed-upon rules often clash with geopolitical tensions and tariffs. It will be interesting to see how India, a key beneficiary of these tensions, positions itself as it emerges as a major economy.

If the EU signs free trade agreements with India and the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) in the near future, it could pave the way for new standardization of intellectual property rights within these regions. A joint legal framework may emerge, aligning with a free-trade mindset.

Overall, governments should focus more on supporting smaller firms and innovators, as their contributions are crucial now more than ever. Increased venture capital funding for startups is essential, as they are often more willing to take risks and drive the boundaries of innovation.

Let’s shift gears and explore the impact of rapid technological advancements on intellectual property. In today’s fast-evolving tech landscape, what do you see as the biggest threats to IP, and what steps can companies take to better protect their innovations?

Feigel: Technologies like AI and blockchain won’t make IP protection obsolete. However, our legal systems must evolve to keep pace with these technologies. AI can generate content, but it’s hard to pinpoint the inventor. AI can also be used to track existing IP rights, so claims will need to be more robust. Blockchain helps with transparent IP documentation through smart contracts, which could ensure that inventors are paid more transparently. All this is more of an opportunity than a threat. Of course, the legal framework will need to evolve to guarantee rights, but I don’t see imminent danger coming from AI.

Leiber: AI is primarily an efficiency tool designed to enhance creativity and productivity, enabling innovators to focus on what truly matters: creative thinking. However, its role in innovation varies across different jurisdictions. In places like Japan and the US, the regulations are more flexible, while the EU tends to be more restrictive.

When you ask ChatGPT a question, the answer itself is not inherently inventive. However, it can help structure your thoughts by providing quick access to technical information—such as mathematical formulas or specifications—that would otherwise require time-consuming research. As you refine your prompts and incorporate your own creative input, AI can assist in generating results that are novel and potentially innovative. That said, patent claims still need to be drafted by humans, as the creative process is inherently human.

There remains a degree of ambiguity in the use of generative AI in patent filings. In some jurisdictions, such as the US, Germany, Korea, and China, patents filed with the assistance of AI have high grant rates (80-90%). However, in the European Patent Office (EPO), the grant rate for AI-assisted patents has recently dropped to around 20%.

“To ensure legal validity, inventors should carefully draft their patents, using language that reflects personal creativity and includes original elements not generated by AI. The best results come from combining human creativity with the efficiency AI offers.” – Thomas Leiber

AI can certainly accelerate the patent drafting process, but it must be evaluated correctly. Humans must remain at the forefront of innovation to ensure patents are genuinely inventive.

Blockchain presents an exciting opportunity, though its potential for creating smart IP pools or simplifying licensing remains unclear. While blockchain could streamline licensing and reduce complexity, its adoption among large companies is still in the early stages.

Negotiating with multiple parties holding intellectual property rights can be cumbersome, and patent litigation often benefits only lawyers and patent trolls, eroding trust between startups and large corporations. Blockchain could transform intellectual property into a tradable asset class, much like cryptocurrencies, reducing litigation and increasing the value of innovative companies, enabling them to focus on product commercialization. IP tokens or pools could hold tangible value, similar to cryptocurrencies.

This is an exciting and evolving area, and as I continue to explore AI, blockchain, crypto, and NFTs, I look forward to delving deeper into these possibilities in the future.

We’ve discussed how innovation and cross-border collaboration can drive economic success, but let’s focus now on a key sector: the German automotive industry. With its deep-rooted history and reliance on traditional models, many are questioning if it’s too late for the industry to adapt. Do you believe innovation can provide a way forward, or is the German auto sector at risk of being left behind?

Feigel: This is a very topical question. Of course, my answer is subjective and solely based on my experience. Personally, I don’t think it’s too late for the automotive industry to get back on track, but structural changes are essential. Compared to other industries in Germany, automotive actually still stands strong. It’s the last industry in Germany, and I hope this acts as a wake-up call for the population. Otherwise, we may soon see ourselves as a potential emerging market rather than a global leader.

Leiber: From my perspective, Germans have often been more comfortable as followers than leaders. Historically, this approach has worked well and has been a key part of Germany’s success story. However, the situation is changing. With China advancing so rapidly, it’s much harder to catch up now than in the past. Additionally, there seems to be a growing lack of decisiveness and leadership in corporate governance.

If we look at other global innovation hubs, we see massive opportunities, especially in places like India. But these opportunities need to be seized now, before others take the lead. As a smaller company, I can move quickly in these markets, but it’s much harder for larger companies based in Germany.

“A cultural shift is needed. In Germany, many people are afraid of losing their jobs or, more often, losing control. However, they need to change their mindset and realize that embracing rapid change and making bold decisions will ultimately help secure their jobs in the long term.” – Thomas Leiber

Leadership plays a huge role in this shift. A true leader should strive to unlock the full potential of their team, nurturing individual skills that enhance the collective strength of the group. My business philosophy is based on resilience, collaboration and trust, and I see humility as one of the most important leadership traits. Humble leaders are better able to build strong, trusting relationships with their teams. On the other hand, those who fear losing control often become the biggest obstacles to progress in organizations. To stay competitive, especially in today’s fast-moving landscape, leaders must empower their teams and embrace change rather than cling to outdated ways of thinking.

Feigel: I agree with that. We also have to acknowledge that the automotive industry in Germany is part of the German identity and pride, similar to what Swissair was to the Swiss. The people care about it, and we have to realise that if it falters, it risks extinction. This awakening is necessary to drive the change required. There are location disadvantages and slow internal bureaucracy, and all of that needs to change. But I’m generally optimistic. Things are not as bleak as some may think, but it won’t happen without change.

Leiber: It’s also about creating structures in terms of taxation and investments that foster innovation and support startups. We need to bring startups back, invest in them, and make Germany a hub for innovation. People need to feel encouraged to be entrepreneurial again, either through rewards in large companies or by investing in startups. In other countries, it is much easier for startups. Eventually, all the talent will go elsewhere.

Feigel: This isn’t something that happened overnight; it’s been a gradual process. Companies have expanded internationally and made significant investments. To bring those investments back, a shift in direction is needed.

I’ve also been reflecting on how the unique qualities of a startup can be preserved as a company grows. The size of a company plays a critical role in its capacity for innovation.

The larger the company, the more bureaucracy and hierarchy it tends to develop, which can stifle innovation. However, the closer management is to employees, the more likely it is to foster a culture of innovation.

Some large companies are responding to this by splitting into autonomous units with greater decision-making freedom, and this approach has proven successful in many cases. However, the challenge lies in the tension between empowering these autonomous units and maintaining overall responsibility within the organization. As a company grows, it’s necessary to have individuals overseeing the company as a whole, which can contradict the goal of creating fully independent units.

That said, I believe that a “company within a company” model has distinct advantages. It allows you to leverage the synergies and resources of the larger organization, while the holding company focuses on supporting and nurturing innovation, rather than controlling every aspect of it.

“In conclusion, complaining about the challenges won’t solve anything. What’s needed are new structures within established companies, along with changes to the legal and political frameworks that shape the business landscape.” – Hans-Jörg Feigel