A new survey published as Germany’s Digital Summit opens in Berlin reveals overwhelming corporate demand for domestically developed artificial intelligence. According to industry association Bitkom, 96% of German companies would prefer AI solutions from national providers, while confidence in US and Chinese suppliers is declining. Yet nearly two-thirds are unwilling to accept higher costs or reduced functionality in exchange for greater technological independence. The findings expose a central challenge for Europe’s digital sovereignty ambitions: building an internationally competitive AI industry without compromising performance, innovation or security.
As European governments seek to strengthen their position in the global artificial intelligence market, a new survey of German businesses highlights the growing importance of technological sovereignty in corporate decision-making. Published by the German digital industry association Bitkom on 2 November 2026, the findings indicate a pronounced preference for domestic AI providers, accompanied by concerns over the economic and technological compromises that greater independence might require.
The survey, conducted among 603 German companies employing at least 20 people, found that 96% would prefer to use AI applications developed by German providers. For 87% of respondents, a supplier’s country of origin is an important consideration when selecting an AI solution. However, 64% are unwilling to accept disadvantages such as higher prices or reduced functionality in exchange for AI services offering domestic data processing and protection against foreign access.
The results arrive as the German government’s Digital Summit takes place in Berlin on 2–3 November under the theme “Shaping AI: safe, sovereign, competitive”. The conference brings together political representatives, technology companies, researchers and international partners to examine how Germany and Europe can strengthen their AI capabilities while maintaining security, competitiveness and regulatory safeguards.
For European policymakers, the findings raise questions extending well beyond national technology preferences. They highlight the tension between the ambition to reduce dependence on foreign technology providers and the practical requirements of businesses operating in highly competitive international markets.
European Providers Gain Support as US Preference Declines
Although German AI suppliers enjoy the strongest preference among surveyed businesses, the findings also suggest growing interest in solutions developed elsewhere in the European Union.
The proportion of companies favouring French AI providers increased from 38% in 2025 to 46% in 2026. Providers based in other EU member states also gained ground, rising from 40% to 43%. These developments indicate an increasing willingness among German businesses to consider European alternatives to internationally dominant technology companies.
By contrast, preference for AI solutions originating in the United States declined by ten percentage points, from 51% to 41%. Chinese providers experienced a similar, although smaller, reduction, with preference falling from 18% to 12%.
These figures describe stated supplier preferences rather than actual procurement decisions or market shares. Respondents could identify multiple countries or regions, meaning the results should not be interpreted as mutually exclusive choices.
Nevertheless, the direction of change is significant. The United States continues to dominate important segments of the global AI ecosystem, including foundation models, cloud platforms and specialised computing infrastructure. The declining preference for American suppliers among German companies therefore points to increasing interest in diversification, even where businesses may continue to depend on US technology for operational or commercial reasons.
For European providers, this development represents an opportunity to establish stronger market positions. Whether they can translate political and commercial interest into sustained adoption will depend on their ability to deliver competitive technology, reliable infrastructure and scalable services.
Digital Sovereignty Meets Commercial Reality
The strongest contradiction in the Bitkom findings concerns the difference between companies’ stated preference for domestic AI and their willingness to accept compromises in return.
While nearly all surveyed businesses express an interest in German solutions, a substantial majority are reluctant to sacrifice functionality or cost efficiency. The result suggests that technological sovereignty is becoming an important procurement criterion, but not necessarily one that overrides commercial considerations.
Bitkom President Ralf Wintergerst argues that Germany and Europe must develop their own AI technologies rather than remain primarily dependent on applications created elsewhere. However, he also emphasises that European solutions must be capable of competing internationally on their own merits.
This distinction is central to the European debate. Digital sovereignty is not achieved simply by replacing an American or Asian supplier with a European company. It also depends on whether organisations can exercise meaningful control over their data, infrastructure, technology dependencies and future operational choices.
A European AI provider may, for example, rely on non-European semiconductor technology, externally developed foundation models or cloud infrastructure operated by international companies. Conversely, a non-European provider may offer services that meet specific European security, contractual and data protection requirements.
Supplier nationality therefore provides only a partial indication of technological independence. More meaningful assessments must consider operational control, contractual rights, technical transparency, portability and the ability to maintain services if commercial or geopolitical circumstances change.
Investment and Computing Capacity Become Strategic Priorities
The survey also reveals strong support for a more ambitious German technology policy. According to a separate representative Bitkom survey, 97% of companies want the federal government to increase investment in key technologies. The same proportion considers strengthening digital sovereignty an urgent priority.
Furthermore, 64% believe Germany needs additional hyperscalers, the large-scale cloud infrastructure providers that support increasingly compute-intensive digital services.
These demands reflect one of Europe’s most persistent technological challenges: the gap between its industrial capabilities and its capacity to develop, train and operate advanced AI systems at scale.
Modern AI infrastructure requires substantial investment in computing hardware, data centres, energy supply, networking technology and specialised expertise. Developing competitive models also depends on access to high-quality datasets, skilled researchers and sufficient computing resources.
The European Commission has sought to address these limitations through its AI Continent Action Plan. The initiative includes expanding Europe’s network of AI Factories, supporting the development of up to five AI Gigafactories and mobilising investment through the InvestAI programme. The broader investment ambition amounts to €200 billion, including a €20 billion initiative intended to support large-scale AI computing facilities.
These measures are designed to strengthen European research capabilities, support AI development and create infrastructure that enables businesses to compete internationally. Their effectiveness, however, will depend on the implementation of announced projects, the mobilisation of private investment and the extent to which infrastructure becomes accessible to European companies.
For Germany, Bitkom identifies particular opportunities in industrial applications and specialised enterprise AI. These areas build on existing strengths in manufacturing, engineering and business software, potentially allowing European developers to compete through sector-specific expertise rather than attempting to replicate every offering of the largest global technology companies.
AI Sovereignty Is Also a Cybersecurity Challenge
For the European cybersecurity industry, the debate over AI sovereignty raises questions about data protection, supply chain security and operational resilience.
As AI becomes embedded in business processes, security monitoring, industrial operations and critical infrastructure management, organisations are increasingly dependent on the platforms that provide these capabilities. The resulting risks extend beyond traditional concerns about personal data processing.
AI systems may require access to commercially sensitive information, internal documents, infrastructure configurations or operational datasets. Depending on their architecture and contractual arrangements, these systems may involve external model providers, cloud operators, software integrators and other technology partners.
This creates additional dependencies that must be evaluated within organisational risk management.
Security considerations include the location and control of data processing, the legal jurisdictions governing service providers, access privileges, encryption arrangements, incident response capabilities and the transparency of subcontracting relationships. Equally important are model security, resilience against manipulation, the protection of sensitive information and the ability to audit AI-supported decisions.
Particular attention should be paid to vendor lock-in. Organisations that integrate proprietary AI services deeply into their operations may encounter significant technical and financial obstacles when attempting to change providers. Interoperability, documented interfaces, export capabilities and credible exit strategies can therefore contribute to digital sovereignty regardless of supplier nationality.
European data protection legislation and the EU AI Act also form part of the regulatory environment, although their requirements differ according to the type of system, processing activity and organisation involved. Compliance with these frameworks must be assessed independently of whether an AI provider is headquartered within the European Union.
For security managers and technology procurement teams, the practical conclusion is that national or regional origin should be considered alongside demonstrable security controls, operational reliability and contractual accountability.
The European Dimension of Germany’s Digital Summit
The Digital Summit provides an important political setting for this debate. Organised by Germany’s Federal Ministry for Digital Transformation and Government Modernisation, the two-day event focuses on AI security, technological sovereignty, competitiveness and the conditions required to establish a stronger European AI ecosystem.
The programme includes discussions involving European and Canadian representatives, the European Commission, research institutions and technology businesses. The international composition underlines that Europe’s technological challenges cannot be addressed solely through national industrial policies.
Fragmentation remains a significant obstacle. While individual European countries have developed expertise in AI research, industrial software, semiconductor technologies and advanced computing, their markets and investment structures do not always provide the scale available to major international competitors.
Closer coordination in infrastructure investment, research, standards and public procurement could strengthen Europe’s capacity to develop commercially viable AI technologies. At the same time, policies intended to support European suppliers must address the concerns expressed by businesses: performance, functionality, availability and cost remain decisive factors in technology adoption.
The policy challenge is therefore not simply to encourage organisations to buy European AI, but to create conditions under which European solutions become attractive without requiring substantial commercial sacrifices.
From Political Ambition to Competitive Capability
The Bitkom survey demonstrates that demand for European technological alternatives exists, at least within the German business community. It does not, however, establish that companies are prepared to abandon established international providers or fundamentally change their procurement strategies.
That distinction matters for policymakers seeking to measure progress towards digital sovereignty. Expressions of preference may provide an indication of market potential, but actual independence will depend on investment decisions, the availability of competitive products and the development of sustainable technology ecosystems.
The findings also suggest that European AI policy must pursue several objectives simultaneously: strengthening domestic innovation, expanding secure computing infrastructure, attracting investment and maintaining access to internationally competitive technology.
For the security industry, the consequences are particularly far-reaching. As AI becomes more closely integrated with cybersecurity operations, physical security technologies and critical infrastructure, questions of supplier dependence and operational control will increasingly influence long-term resilience.
The central message from Germany’s business community is therefore not an unconditional rejection of foreign AI technology. It is a demand for credible European alternatives capable of competing on security, performance and price.
For Europe, the ultimate test of digital sovereignty will not be the proportion of companies expressing a preference for domestic technology, but whether European providers can turn that preference into sustainable market success while giving organisations genuine control over their digital infrastructure and strategic dependencies.
Source and Methodology
The primary findings are drawn from research conducted by Bitkom Research on behalf of German digital industry association Bitkom and published on 2 November 2026. The supplier preference findings are based on telephone interviews with 603 companies employing at least 20 people in Germany, conducted between calendar weeks 28 and 33 of 2026. The policy-related results are based on a separate representative survey of 602 companies of the same minimum size, conducted between calendar weeks 33 and 39 of 2026. Both surveys are described by Bitkom as representative of the German economy. The findings should not be interpreted as representative of businesses across Europe, the Middle East or Africa. The broader European market, cybersecurity and digital sovereignty implications discussed in this article constitute editorial analysis.
Primary sources:
