Understanding Corporate-Political Dynamics in Light of Sustainable Development: A Case Study on BMW and EU Regulation 2019/631 on CO₂ Emissions in the Automotive Industry

Abstract

This research examines how BMW’s strategic political management in response to regulation (EU) 2019/631 on CO₂ emissions of vans and passenger cars contributes to a sustainable socio-technical transition in the EU. A recognised gap in academic literature calls for more integrative approaches that combine micro-level firm behaviour with macro-level socio-technical change. Thus, this qualitative abductive case study applies a multi-level perspective through the socio-technical transition framework and a corporate point of view through the dynamic capabilities framework for strategic political management. The study analyses the dynamic development of the EU regulation in light of landscape, regime, and niche dynamics, and BMW’s strategic political responses to regulatory pressures and their implications for sustainability transitions. Findings reveal that corporate-political dynamics have a double-edged role. The EU regulation is a necessary driver to initiate decarbonisation, but its design primarily promotes incremental innovation and reflects policymakers shifting between climate and economic landscape pressures. In contrast, BMW’s proactive strategic political management can drive radical innovation and niche development, fostering transition. However, defensive strategies can slow regulatory progress.The study contributes by bridging the micro-macro theoretical divide. It extends socio-technical transition literature on regime actor agency by highlighting the politicisation of landscape pressures, incumbent-led niche shaping, and multi-level agency. For strategic political management literature, it integrates micro-level strategies into a macro context, showing their systemic implications and the link between dynamic capabilities and influence.In conclusion, achieving sustainability goals requires a balanced approach combining regulation and proactive corporate action, though incumbent influence raises legitimacy concerns. Limitations include the single-case study’s generalisability and reliance on secondary data.