The German industrial model, based on the innovativeness and solidity of medium-sized enterprises such as the Dräger group from Lübeck, is now confronting barriers that do not stem from a lack of technology, but from the tightening regulatory corset of the European Union. Stefan Dräger, who heads a company with a 150-year tradition, points squarely to Brussels as the main source of problems for the modern medical and defence industries. Although for decades the firm has maintained stability thanks to its unique solutions in safety technology and medical devices, its further development is being held back by EU law directed against the use of key chemicals — the so-called PFAS substances. This conflict between rigorous environmental policy and the production needs of high technology is becoming the axis of a dispute that may decide the future of the German manufacturing sector in Europe.
An analysis of the market situation of globally operating enterprises at the same time refutes the popular media myth that it is exclusively US tariff policy that constitutes the greatest threat to German exports. Data presented by industry leaders show that the costs associated with the dollar's devaluation against the euro are almost twice as high as the burdens resulting from potential tariffs. This shift in the profitability of production between Europe and the USA is becoming a real challenge that the German political side seems not to perceive, focusing instead on the emotional criticism of protectionism. In reality, it is currency dynamics and internal regulatory costs in the European Union that constitute a greater ballast for firms which, instead of competing on quality, must waste energy on navigating a thicket of not always logical environmental regulations.
An equally worrying phenomenon is the change in mentality of German society and management, who increasingly look for a solution to all problems in state intervention. Stefan Dräger notes a dangerous trend in which responsibility for business mistakes or market difficulties is delegated to the government, which leads to the emergence of a posture of entitlement and passivity. Instead of striving for self-sufficiency and innovation, many entities count on public financial drips, which over the longer term weakens the foundations on which the strength of "Made in Germany" was built. This process of erosion of the work and entrepreneurship ethos, combined with rising labour and energy costs, creates a mixture that threatens the stability even of such venerable firms, which until now have effectively avoided political glitter in favour of solid work.
Paradoxically, despite these difficulties, the safety and medical technology sector finds new growth impulses in the face of mounting global threats, such as sabotage or attacks on critical infrastructure, including hospitals. Companies that managed to maintain a continuity of orders for the defence sector, such as the Bundeswehr, are currently recording record interest in their services, which allows them to make optimistic financial forecasts through the end of the decade. However, this growth based on crisis management and fear will not replace the healthy growth that flows from economic freedom — a freedom that is being systematically restricted by bureaucracy. In this context, German industry faces the necessity of redefining its relationship with EU institutions, lest it become a victim of its own lofty but unrealistic regulatory ambitions.
In conclusion, the case of the Dräger company serves as a lens through which the crisis of the German economic model can be seen. German industry is not afraid of technological competition but is losing out to the ideological approach to the economy that prevails in Brussels. If the European Union does not revise its approach to chemical and environmental regulations, we risk pushing the most innovative companies beyond the borders of the continent. At the same time, without a return to a culture of individual responsibility and a rejection of the welfare mentality, the German economy may lose its greatest asset — reliability and the capacity to survive crises without looking to the state for help.
