The question is no longer whether German carmakers can return to their former strength. It is whether Europe can renew one of its most consequential industrial networks without confusing nostalgia with resilience—or digital ambition with a business model.

Germany’s automotive debate is often framed as a contest between engineering tradition and technological disruption. The latest Bitkom survey points to a more demanding public expectation: preserve what works, digitise what does not, and make the transition deliver benefits people can see in the vehicle they buy.

That expectation matters well beyond Germany. At the end of the first half of 2026, the country’s automotive industry employed 691,500 people—42,300 fewer than a year earlier and its lowest level since 2005. The impact does not stop at factory gates. Suppliers, specialist manufacturers and service businesses connect the sector to jobs, household spending and investment decisions across regional and national borders. 

Germany’s place in the European economy adds weight to the story, but it needs careful interpretation. The Bundesbank’s latest accounting of EU budget and NextGenerationEU flows identifies Germany as the largest net contributor in 2025, at 0.6% of gross national income. That does not mean automotive job losses mechanically translate into a smaller EU contribution. It does mean that pressure on Germany’s industrial base is unfolding in an economy with an outsized role in Europe’s financing and production networks. 

A public mandate with two conditions

In a representative telephone survey of 1,003 people aged 16 and over, conducted by Bitkom Research for the German digital association Bitkom, 79% say the automotive industry cannot remain competitive without digital innovation. Seven in ten say cooperation with technology companies is needed to keep pace internationally.

Yet the public has not abandoned the industry. Seventy-one per cent believe it can regain its former strength. Almost half, 49%, want it to return more strongly to its traditional values. Read together, these figures do not amount to a vote for either radical reinvention or a return to the past. They set a condition: Germany’s engineering and quality must continue to matter, but they cannot carry the industry through the next competitive cycle without software, data and new technologies.

The pressures named by respondents are not confined to technology. Rising petrol and energy prices top the list at 69%, with trade conflicts close behind at 67%. More than half cite restrictions on combustion engines, 56%, and new competitors, 53%. Battery-supplier dependence concerns 48%; a shortage of engineers with IT expertise, 38%.

This is where the survey’s optimism meets the industrial reality. Digitalisation may strengthen products and processes, but it cannot by itself settle energy costs, trade exposure, skills shortages or the economics of battery supply.

The connected car must still earn its place

The clearest evidence of changing expectations appears in purchase criteria. Internet access for entertainment or communication is important to 80% of respondents, up from 66% in 2023. It now ranks above brand and design, each at 56%. Driver-assistance systems matter to 77%; smartphone-compatible cockpits to 74%; vehicle-data services to 71%; and online software updates to 66%.

But digital features have not displaced the basics. Safety matters to 98%, environmental performance such as consumption to 94%, comfort to 93%, and purchase price to 92%. The implication for manufacturers is not simply to add more screens or services. Connectivity has to support the qualities buyers already expect: safety, efficiency, convenience and value.

That distinction also matters for business-to-business markets. Software, data services and fleet connectivity may create new revenue streams, but they depend on trust, reliable updates and a clear value proposition. A feature that raises cost or complexity without improving the vehicle’s use is not, by itself, an innovation strategy.

Automation attracts interest; responsibility remains unsettled

Public sentiment towards autonomous driving has shifted. Sixty-nine per cent now expect it to become standard, compared with 53% the previous year. The share who see it as a hype that will not last has fallen from 43% to 24%.

The strongest interest is in shared transport: 71% could imagine using an autonomous bus and 69% an autonomous metro or urban rail service. A self-driving private car appeals to 62%; an autonomous taxi to 60%. That preference may reflect a practical distinction: people can welcome automation in a managed service without yet wanting to surrender control of their own vehicle.

Experience remains limited at higher automation levels. Forty-seven per cent have used Level 1 driver assistance and 34% Level 2 partial automation. Only 5% report experience with Level 3 and 2% with Level 4. Meanwhile, legal uncertainty worries 63%, technical problems 59%, and hacking 47%.

The public sees possible benefits—smoother traffic, less noise and improved safety—but the survey does not establish that these outcomes will follow automatically. Nor does it answer who is responsible when a system makes the wrong decision. That is not a side issue to be resolved after deployment. It is part of the conditions under which deployment can earn public confidence.

Support for AI intervention is strongest when safety is at stake: 83% welcome a system that blocks a vehicle during a detected theft attempt; 78% support a system that takes control to avoid a crash. Sixty-nine per cent favour AI that detects possible driver impairment and advises against driving. A narrower majority, 53%, would support active intervention in cases of speeding or dangerous driving. The closer AI moves from assistance to authority, the more questions of accountability and user acceptance matter.

Mobility is changing—but not mainly because of apps

The survey’s account of travel behaviour complicates the idea that digital services are driving a wholesale mobility shift. Compared with 2024, 21% say they use a private car less often, while 16% use one more often. Bicycle use has grown more clearly: 43% say they cycle more often and 8% less often. Car-sharing is up for 11% and down for 3%. Use of ride-hailing services is described as stable.

Among respondents who changed their mobility habits, 61% cite climate concerns and 51% higher energy or petrol prices. Among those driving less, the price factor rises to 78%. New mobility services are cited by 16%; Germany’s nationwide flat-rate public transport ticket and mobility budgets by 15% each; more frequent home working by 6%.

That is a consequential distinction. The survey records substantial interest in digital mobility, but the reported behaviour changes are more often attributed to climate concerns and cost than to new services. For businesses, the lesson is that digital products will not overcome affordability or infrastructure problems on their own.

What the survey can—and cannot—tell Europe

The findings are a snapshot of German opinion, not a forecast of sales, employment or competitiveness. They cannot be treated as a proxy for public attitudes across Europe. Nor does public confidence that the industry will recover prove that it will.

Their value lies elsewhere: they show that German respondents broadly accept digitalisation as necessary, while continuing to judge cars by safety, efficiency, comfort and price. They also indicate openness to autonomy, coupled with unresolved concerns about law, reliability and cyber risk. For European industry and policymakers, the challenge is to turn that conditional openness into products and services that work—and into an industrial transition that sustains investment and employment across the value chain.

Excursus | Pro & Contra: Should Europe defend Germany’s automotive base?

The stakes are not simply whether Germany keeps its old position. They are whether Europe should use public policy to help its automotive network transform—or accept a faster contraction and the economic disruption that would follow.

Pro: Let the industrial network change, but do not let it collapse

The automotive sector supports far more than vehicle assembly. Its suppliers, engineering firms and specialist manufacturers form part of Europe’s industrial infrastructure. A sudden contraction can reduce household purchasing power, weaken regional demand and make it harder for smaller businesses to invest.

The survey also suggests that the public is not hostile to change. It expects digital innovation and remains confident that the industry can recover. A policy focused on skills, research, software capability and competitive production could help retain value in Europe while the business model changes.

Contra: A rescue of the old model is not a strategy

Confidence is not competitiveness. The same respondents identify energy prices, trade conflict, battery dependence and new rivals as major pressures. Public money cannot guarantee that incumbent producers will find customers—or that existing jobs can be preserved in their current form.

There is also a risk of protecting capacity because it is familiar, rather than because it can compete. Support that slows restructuring may delay the movement of capital and workers into stronger businesses. And if Europe treats Germany’s industrial position as synonymous with Europe’s interest, it may obscure the costs and trade-offs faced by other member states.

The test for policy should therefore be demanding: support capabilities that make the transition viable, and judge them by productivity, innovation and durable demand—not by the promise of restoring a previous era.

Methodology: Bitkom Research conducted telephone interviews with 1,003 people aged 16 and over in Germany during calendar weeks 30–35 of 2026. The results reflect reported attitudes and self-described behaviour, not actual purchase decisions or future market demand.

>>>>> This article based on a press release of Bitkom: Deutsche trauen Autoindustrie eine Rückkehr zu alter Stärke zu – mit digitalen Innovationen (22.10.2026)