While most of Germany’s corporate leaders strongly supported Adolf Hitler’s Nazis, this changed in post-Nazi Germany after 1945. Today, German capitalism is modernised capitalism. Germany’s corporate leaders appear to have realised at least three things:

  1. Workers: It is far better to exploit workers than to use them as slave labour, allow them to die in misery, or have them murdered by the SS.
  2. Consumers: It is far more profitable to view workers as consumers than to sacrifice them in senseless – albeit often profitable – wars.
  3. Markets: It is better to regard neighbouring countries as markets for German products rather than territories to be conquered for marginal strategic gains.

Much earlier in history, Spanish capitalism realised this – perhaps during the sixteenth century. French capitalism reached a similar conclusion in Africa, while British capitalism did so across much of the globe. German capitalism took somewhat longer. Worse still, it took two world wars for German capitalism to realise these three essentials of modern capitalism.

With this in mind, German capitalism has a post-Nazi history of a fragmented, though gradually developing, commitment to democratic society. Democracy has become the guiding principle for capitalism and for the engagement of corporate leaders in politics. Today, most business leaders openly support democracy. Even so, Germany’s corporate leaders rarely act openly against political parties, at least in public.

Staying out of party politics – at least officially, notwithstanding corporate lobbying and discreet party financing for pro-business parties – has been the guiding principle for many corporate leaders for decades. Trade unions have been the main exception.

For decades, Germany’s corporate leaders largely adhered to this principle. More recently, however, their reluctance to engage in party politics has weakened in response to what they perceive as a growing threat to their businesses. With the rise of Germany’s first neo-fascist political party to seriously challenge the country’s democratic system, the AfD, the party’s anti-business policies have moved into the foreground.

As a strongly nationalist political party, the AfD’s anti-EU stance is one of the principal reasons for concern among German business leaders. After all, the European Union is the primary export market for German industry. The AfD’s proposal to abandon the euro (€), for example, has generated significant concern among Germany’s export-oriented businesses. As the employers’ own research institute recently argued, these policies amount to “economic suicide”.

Among Germany’s corporate elite, opposition to the AfD gained renewed momentum following the election in Sonneberg, Thuringia, where, for the first time in post-Nazi Germany, the AfD assumed executive political responsibility. The party gained power at the local level in a town of approximately 23,000 people. 

Winning a mayoral office alarmed Germany’s corporate leaders. Subsequent opinion polls only intensified these concerns. Nationally, the AfD has approached 30 per cent support and has a realistic chance of taking power in an East German state such as Saxony-Anhalt.

With access to real political power, even at a relatively modest level, Germany’s corporate sector began debating how to respond to a neo-fascist party that appeared to be gaining momentum. Companies and their leaders increasingly chose to publicly oppose the AfD while expressing support for Germany’s democratic parties and democratic institutions – not necessarily out of democratic conviction, but because of their support for access to a vital export market: the European Union.

Corporate opposition intensified further after the AfD’s secret Potsdam meeting in November 2023, where known neo-fascists, neo-Nazis, and senior AfD officials reportedly discussed plans for the removal of people deemed not to belong in Germany. These are precisely the people whom German neo-Nazis regard as unsuitable for their imagined Aryan Volksgemeinschaft, but whom German businesses urgently need as workers.

The subsequent revelation of the Potsdam meeting by the investigative journalists of Correctiv triggered widespread outrage and nationwide demonstrations involving millions of participants. Encouraged by this public reaction, corporate leaders began discussing their political responsibilities as economic actors within a democratic society.

CEOs and business leaders were further encouraged by Germany’s former Interior Minister, Nancy Faeser, to speak publicly against the AfD. At the same time, growing public opposition to the AfD increased pressure on business leaders to take a stand. Their concerns stemmed largely from the party’s economic irrationality. For years, doubts about the AfD’s economic and political positioning had persisted within corporate circles.

Against this background, it remains imperative to acknowledge the historical alliance between business and Nazism during the 1930s and early 1940s. By 2023–24, many of Germany’s self-appointed “captains of industry” had come to realise that the far-right party threatened both Germany’s democratic order and the export-oriented interests of German capital. In other words, democratic values and economic imperatives had begun to align.

Increasingly, business leaders became aware of two issues. First, individual freedom, democracy, and Germany’s social market economy are structurally interconnected. Second, the AfD represents a threat to all three. Many within the corporate sector realised that political freedom can be undermined and that such developments would damage Germany’s economic foundations.

As a result, a substantial number of prominent CEOs and employers began publicly opposing the far-right party. Their arguments generally followed two lines of reasoning:

Economy:

Business leaders increasingly viewed the neo-fascist AfD as an economic risk. The most powerful organisation within the corporate sector is the Federation of German Industries (BDI). Its president, Siegfried Russwurm, publicly stated that “the AfD is detrimental to our country. It hurts the economy.” The second major business organisation is the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations (BDA). 

Its president pointed out that the AfD has no credible answer to Germany’s shortage of skilled workers. In other words, removing migrants and other groups from the labour market would transform Germany’s existing labour shortage into a severe crisis for employers.

Democracy:

Corporate leaders also emphasised the consequences of the AfD for Germany’s democratic constitutional order. Capitalism prefers a stable institutional framework within which profits can be generated. Their second argument was therefore more philosophical. 

Entrepreneurs such as Reinhold Würth – one of Germany’s most prominent business figures – wrote personal letters to employees warning that the AfD seeks a “dictatorship”. Meanwhile, executives from Siemens and Daimler argued that the AfD could lead Germany towards mistakes that must not be repeated. They were referring to the decision to bring Adolf Hitler to power in 1933. 

In short, many business leaders became deeply concerned about the future of German democracy. Evonik CEO Christian Kullmann stated: “The AfD is detrimental to our economy, our society, our future”, while Deutsche Bank’s CEO noted that the AfD is damaging “to the future of our democracy and of our location”.

Alongside unusually direct criticism from Germany’s mainstream quality media, company headquarters found it relatively easy to join the public opposition. By December 2024, around four in ten people in Germany had publicly positioned themselves against the AfD. This further encouraged business leaders to raise their voices against the party.

Against this background, three key recommendations for action against the AfD have emerged:

1. Effective Engagement

German employers regard it as crucial that their public engagement be understood within the framework of what is commonly called “CEO activism”. Such engagement should be seen in the context of broader political developments. Corporate leaders seek effective forms of intervention that address the challenges facing Germany’s democratic society.

These efforts should be coordinated across companies and among CEOs. Internal management practices should focus less on individual opinions and more on the development of a consistent, long-term commitment to democratic processes. Individual initiatives require not only normative justification but also empirical evaluation. 

Employers believe that carefully designed communication strategies can strengthen the effectiveness of corporate voices. This requires appropriate indicators, systematic feedback mechanisms, and external evaluations where necessary, allowing unintended consequences to be identified early and enabling organisations to learn and adapt.

2. Anchoring Values Rather Than Ad Hoc Engagement

In the medium term, successful corporate political engagement should not primarily depend on situational interventions by individual executives. Instead, it should focus on embedding democratic values within organisations. There are compelling reasons to develop coherent value systems that provide a moral compass grounded in democratic principles. Such commitments should include a clear normative dedication to liberal democracy and fundamental human rights.

This long-term anchoring of democratic values should be based on Germany’s Basic Law, which provides both orientation and an institutional framework that reduces dependence on personal opinions. Such an approach increases consistency in CEO engagement and provides reliability over time, even amid potential shifts in political power.

From a management perspective, the operational implementation of what employers describe as a “value compass” is particularly important. Its effectiveness depends on being translated into clear responsibilities, communication principles, training programmes for managers and employees, and transparent criteria governing partnerships and stakeholder relations.

In this way, a democratic value compass promotes consistency in leadership decisions while providing guidance for employees. At the same time, institutionalising such a framework allows organisations to approach CEO political engagement in a systematic and strategic manner.

3. Moderation and Accountability in Public Criticism

Within Germany’s liberal democracy and social market economy, companies play an active role in public discourse. CEOs are therefore called upon to act constructively, critically, and thoughtfully. They should contribute proposals aimed at improving public policy. Such engagement is not merely an expression of particular interests; it is also part of responsible participation in the ongoing development of the institutional environment in both business and society.

Moreover, there are currently no realistic alternatives to Germany’s democratic centre-ground governments. Minority governments – particularly those dependent on support from the AfD – would involve significant risks and uncertain consequences.

In summary, German capital has renewed and strengthened its warnings against the AfD. German business leaders appear to prefer democracy, European integration, and EU-wide trade over the nationalist agenda of a party that seeks to withdraw Germany from both the European Union and the euro. Both remain essential pillars of contemporary German capitalism.Email