Entrepreneurial Thinking and Acting in the Context of Great Transformations in Germany: How to Approach Entrepreneurial Personalities and Organizations in Order to Actively Shape Transformational Challenges?

Abstract

Great Transformations like the Digital Transformation and Sustainability Transformation, their challenges and their consequences for society are increasingly discussed in theory and practice. In this context, especially the issue of dealing with fundamental and profound changes in economy, politics and society is coming to the fore. In countries with liberal democratic systems such as Germany, an entrepreneurial mindset is granted an important role in dealing with these transformations in a proactive and formative way. Thus, the issue as to how more entrepreneurial individuals and organizations—and therefore more “out of the box thinking”—can systematically be tapped and developed in Germany becomes essential. To this end, this chapter proposes a newly conceptualized interdisciplinary and integrative approach, which was distinctly designed for the addressing and winning of entrepreneurial individuals and organizations in a systematic and targeted manner. Because it is specifically tailored to the prevailing circumstances and structures in Germany, the approach emphasizes enlightened, voluntary and self-sustaining actions. Doing so, it offers an effective, but also legitimate way to address and win entrepreneurial personalities and organizations to contribute to actively shaping the Digital and Sustainability Transformation.

1 Introduction

In recent years, the notion of transformation has become omnipresent in societal debates in everyday life in Germany. Especially when referred to in media as well as in politics, the term “transformation” is often associated with profound medium- to long-term change, which is accompanied by essential challenges in the areas of environment, technology, economy and society. Two transformation occasions, which have become explicitly apparent and are still dominating until the present day, are digitalization on the one hand and sustainability on the other hand. Due to their significance not only today but also in the future, these developments as well as their multifarious theoretical and practical implications, interdependencies and consequences for society are increasingly discussed.

A recent example for the remarkable complexity and controversy of the Great Transformation undertaking with regard to the challenges of sustainability is the heated public discussion about the historic verdict of the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe as a part of the Climate Protection Act legislation, which was decided in spring 2021 (Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2021). The key question addressed with this verdict was which contribution can and should be made by whom and in which way in the present as well as in the future in order to ensure that climate objectives, e.g., the climate goals, which were set at the COP 21 in Paris in 2015, are met, while the fundamental rights of the federal republic of Germany are still complied with and respected at the same time.

Challenges with a structural similarity can—at least in Europe and Germany—be identified with regard to the Digital Transformation as well. Here too the key issue is who can, should and even must act in which way in the present as well as in the future. The focus thereby is not only on being able to react appropriately to the challenges resulting from digitalization such as the spreading of “fakenews” or the handling of personal data. Generally scrutinizing how digital technology and tools can contribute to a self-determined and sophisticated shaping of the future in the areas of industry, education and mobility is of increased importance too. If values like “digital sovereignty” and “self-determination” are the guiding principles a society strives for in the context of digital transformation processes, the causes and implications of change, especially with regard to the economical and geopolitical dependencies we experience nowadays, as well as major actors in society, politics and economy shaping this change need to be identified.

The fundamental and profound political, economic, social and cultural transformational processes (Luks, 2019, p. 3; Schneidewind, 2018, p. 11; Reißig, 2014, p. 57), naturally lead to an increasingly comprehensive pressure for changes (or even already fundamental change itself depending on the system structures), that needs to be dealt with by society, politics and economy.

With that being said, entrepreneurial thinking and acting is granted an important role in overcoming present and future challenges. After all recognizing the necessity for change, adjusting to changed surroundings and parameters and even bringing change itself about are the key components of an entrepreneurial mindset (Schumpeter, 1997). If transformational dynamics and the necessities and also opportunities for change that come with them are detected early, the chances of being able to proactively shape the future are better. If society, politics and also companies cannot keep up with them, it is likely that they only have the chance to react to the new developments and furthermore have to do so on a very short notice. Therefore entrepreneurial thinking and acting in the context of Great Transformations is about two things mainly. On the one hand it is of course—in the sense of Poppers credo “All life is problem solving” (Popper, 1996)—about developing new ideas and finding solutions to already identified or even just emerging problems, but on the other hand it is also about making sure that these solutions—in the sense of Schumpeter’s understanding of innovation (Kurz, 2016, p. 112; Ehrig & Staroske, 2016, p. 174)—are properly implemented by, e.g., adequate decision making and change in behavior.

As a consequence, active and innovative companies play a decisive role when tackling the challenges of Great Transformations such as sustainability and digitalization. By their innovative thinking and acting, which manifests itself in, e.g., creating new products, services or processes (Schumpeter, 1997, p. 100–101), they rise to the challenges and turn them into opportunities. Innovative, sustainable products can, for instance, get less sustainable products driven out of the market or substituted like it is partly happening right now with electro and hydrogen mobility and the traditional combustion engine. But also on a political¹ or individual level, entrepreneurial thinking and acting in the sense of a general mindset can make a substantial contribution when shaping Great Transformations. After all politicians with an entrepreneurial mindset can detect and identify global mega trends earlier and alter the framework conditions accordingly (e.g., by founding a ministry for digitalization). Indeed every single person can adapt or even completely change traditional behavior patterns in everyday life (e.g., reduce CO₂-emission by adapting one’s consumption or using certain digital technologies).

Even though it becomes apparent that an entrepreneurial mindset, especially when understood in a broader sense as drafted above, can make up an essential part of shaping Great Transformations, it has to be conceded that there has not developed a pronounced entrepreneurial culture in Germany so far. This can be seen from numerous studies on entrepreneurial activity (Bosma et al., 2021; Sternberg et al., 2020; Metzger, 2020). The latest reports of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), e.g., show that there still has not established a distinct start-up culture (social values and norms) in Germany (Sternberg et al., 2020, pp. 53–54). On the contrary, the opinion on and attitude toward self-employments is shown to be predominantly rather reserved even in a global comparison. This ultimately reflects in not only a low number of actual start-ups, but also, e.g., in the Germans’ individual assessment of entrepreneurial skills, competencies and opportunities (e.g., Sternberg et al., 2020, pp. 40–41 and pp. 63–64; Bosma et al., 2021, pp. 33–36). The question that naturally evolves from that is how the existing entrepreneurial capacity on the different levels discussed above can be used and how further entrepreneurial personalities and organizations can be made aware, won over and newly developed in order to rise to the challenges of the Great Transformations of digitalization and sustainability.

This chapter addresses this question by presenting the newly conceptualized theoretical approach of so-called Erschließung and pointing out the potentials in the context of Great Transformations. This interdisciplinary Erschließungs-Approach has the distinction of being designed for the addressing and acquiring of various target groups in a systematical matter as well as being integrative and tailored to the specifics of Germany.

To this end, Sect. 2 conducts a literature review on transformation concepts and outlines the challenges and characteristics of the two Great Transformations of sustainability and digitalization in Germany by shortly sketching their formation and features. Based on this, Sect. 3 presents the Erschließungs-Approach for the acquisition of entrepreneurial personalities and organizations in the context of Great Transformations theoretically. In Sect. 4 opportunities and boundaries of this approach for the (pro)active present and future shaping of the Digital and Sustainability Transformation are discussed. Section 5 draws a conclusion and points out further research desiderata concerning entrepreneurial mindsets and Great Transformations.

2 Great Transformations—Challenges and Features

Digitalization and sustainability as occasions for Great Transformations in Germany are discussed in theory and practice from different perspectives. Usually single, definite elements or separate parts, such as digital media competencies (e.g., Heldt et al., 2020) or opportunities for cost-efficient CO₂ reductions (e.g., Kleinertz et al., 2019), are studied.

Although these topics seems to be addressed more and more frequently in academic publications, it must also be conceded that there is still a lot of need for research with regard to general characteristics, special features and implications of Great Transformations. Especially when it comes to the theoretical foundation of what fundamentally distinguishes Great Transformations still reveals some conceptual blank spaces. Therefore, the following section is explicitly designed to take a closer look at Great Transformations as holistic phenomena, their characteristics and implications. After all, knowing their fundamental characteristics as well as the major challenges that go hand in hand with Great Transformations is essential, if we want to recognize transformation processes at an early stage and proactively shape their dynamics.

As a technical term, the concept of transformation has so far found its way into numerous scientific disciplines, including natural sciences (e.g., mathematics or biology), liberal arts (e.g., linguistics or pedagogy) and social sciences (e.g., politics and economics) (Kollmorgen et al., 2015, p. 11). The term has its etymological origins in the Latin verb transformare (= to convert, to reshape, to morph, to change), with formare (= to shape, to form) being the foundation. The noun transformation is used to describe both the process of converting/reshaping/morphing/changing itself and the result of the converting/reshaping/morphing/changing (Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, 2021). Furthermore, the term “transformation” can be used both actively in the sense of “transforming” or passively in the sense of “being transformed” (Duden, 2021).

Although a broad variety of terms such as “development,” “social change,” “modernization,” “innovation,” which have been discussed by authors like Parsons, Luhmann, Münch or Zapf (Reißig, 2014, p. 51), have been suggested, the term “transformation” in particular has established in everyday and scientific language in Germany over the last decade. In the Sustainability Transformation context especially English papers also frequently use the term “transition,” sometimes even as a synonym for transformation (Kahlenborn et al., 2019, p. 11).

Particularly in sociological and economic discussions of Great Transformations, Karl Polanyi and his work The Great Transformation (1944) are repeatedly referred to (Luks, 2019, p. 4; Schneidewind, 2018, p. 10; Becker et al., 2019, p. vi; Blühdorn, 2020, p. 55; WBGU, 2011, p. 5). In his work Polanyi discusses the collapse of the “Nineteenth-century civilization” (Polanyi, 2001, p. 3) and its “political and economic origins” (Polanyi, 2001, p. 3) in retrospect. Polanyi refers to transformation as that historical process that led to an abrupt reversal of the relationship of the social and the economic order (Henesler, 2010, p. 8).

This reversion of traditional relationships and structures identified by Polanyi in his studies is still frequently associated with the essence of transformations today. Kollmorgen et al. (2015) therefore characterize transformation quite generally as a change in the form, nature, shape, character, style or properties of a phenomenon (Kollmorgen et al., 2015, p. 11). Great Transformations as understood in this chapter are thus characterized by the initiation, effectuation and advancement of far-reaching change processes at the structural and functional level, which concern all dimensions of life (such as social, political, economic, cultural and institutional) that are considered relevant in the course of the respective transformation.

In order to make these universal but also relatively abstract remarks more tangible and illustrative, the challenges and characteristics of Great Transformations are discussed below, using the Digital Transformation and Sustainability Transformation as examples. In particular, four basic elements and characteristics of Great Transformations will be examined in more detail.

Kollmorgen et al. (2015) point out that the determination of an initial and final state is semantically included in most understandings of the term “transformation” (Kollmorgen et al., 2015, p. 11). Although the starting points of such transformation processes can vary (among other things these can be new technical developments as well as fundamental system-related insights), what these transformation occasions have in common is that they are not only long-lasting, but also lead to fundamental changes in numerous dimensions of the way of life over time (Reißig, 2014, p. 56–57). Taking a closer look at the emergence of the Digital Transformation and the Sustainability Transformation highlights this first central characteristic of Great Transformations and the challenges associated with them.

Several interdependent and complementary technological developments, which have gradually led to far-reaching modifications, are significant for digitalization as it is today. In general, innovations in computer technology can be seen as the starting point of digitalization from a technological perspective, even though it was particularly the phase of personal computers—based on innovations in the microchip industry—that ensured a more extensive dissemination of computer technology (Weiser & Brown, 2015, p. 59f). However, these technological possibilities alone did not lead to the global digitalization dynamics we are familiar with today. It was just as important that networking between these computers became possible. The best known form of this networking is certainly the World Wide Web, which was presented to the public by Tim Berners-Lee in March 1989 (Wilde, 1999 p. 13). In the following years, information was gradually made available in real time from all over the world. Most recently, digital data infrastructures have led to an increasingly networked digitalization. Amongst other things, the expansion of further wireless technologies (5G) seems to be leading to a kind of “ubiquitous computing” (Weiser & Brown, 2015, p. 61), which is expressed in phenomena like the Internet of Things and many networked microcomputers.

All in all, these basic innovations have digitized a large number of processes, first in business (e.g., industry) and later in a wide variety of other application areas including, e.g., medicine, mobility and education. Since they can easily be made accessible to an ever-increasing number of users at the same time due to their synergistic nature, there has not only been an increase in digital offerings over several decades, but also an increasing attractiveness for users in business and society can be observed up to the present day.

The development of the music and entertainment industry exemplifies the comprehensive and far-reaching effects that have resulted from this technological developments in recent years. Not only have new technologies replaced old technologies and analog products, they have also led to changes in business models, market conditions and user behavior. Separated data storage (e.g., in the form of a CD, MP3 or DVD) and associated processes are, for instance, being replaced by centralized data offerings in the form of streaming services due to increasing (technologically possible) networking and infrastructure availability. Kreutzer and Land (2016) even speak of “Digital Darwinism” in connection with these structural effects. They argue that industries and companies that do not adapt quickly enough to the changing conditions of digitalization will not be able to survive (Kreutzer & Land, 2016, p. 1).

Another example that illustrates the transformative capacity (Dolata, 2008) of these digital technologies in business and society is the mobility sector, which is increasingly coming into focus of the public and scientific discussion. Numerous developments and future target dimensions, including those related to the Sustainability Transformation, like autonomously networked transportation, forms of micromobility and sharing services would not be possible without these digital technologies. Accordingly, looking at digitization as the starting point for numerous transformation processes shows that the combination of various basic technological innovations has led to the well-known effectiveness of the Digital Transformation at almost all socio-economic levels.

The processes and changes of structural similarity become apparent when considering the genesis of the Sustainability Transformation. However, here it is not primarily leaps in technology, but rather scientific observations and systemic findings of ecological and social phenomena that form the starting points of—initially predominantly political—discussions on comprehensive, long-term transformation challenges.

Ever since the publication of the Club of Rome’s report The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1979), topics such as resource consumption, pollution control and sustainability have gradually entered the public discourse in Germany and many other Western countries (Hahn, 2006, p. 103–104). Over the course of the next decades, these topics were increasingly debated at the global level (see, e.g., numerous transnational climate conferences and sustainability summits) as well as at the national level (see, e.g., the foundation of the Ministry for Environment in Germany in 1986). Initially these actions focused primarily on the topic of environmental protection, but soon the scope was broadened and the general connection between societal lifestyle, economic growth and the availability of resources (Grunwald & Kopfmüller, 2012, p. 21) as well as other sustainability challenges like education quality, economic growth or gender equality (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021) were discussed. Especially within the last decade, the need for a Sustainability Transformation, also known as the “social-ecological Transformation” or the “Transformation to Sustainability” (Bohn et al., 2019, p. 7), has been talked about increasingly in Germany and Europe. By now sustainability concerns and particularly the ecological effects of actions (see, e.g., CO₂ footprint) have become omnipresent in various dimensions of life and also in political debates. These developments as well as the attribution of meaning to transformation processes in the context of sustainability eventually led to the Agenda 2030 and the adoption of the so-called Paris Agreement at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) at a supranational political level. In this agreement, over 150 countries committed to a coordinated climate policy with concrete targets like restricting global warming to below 2 °C for the first time (BMU, 2017). Although this commitment was considered a historic step by many people and institutions (Martens & Obenland, 2017, p. 7), discussions on how and on what terms the agreed climate targets could be realized were soon raised in Germany. After all, these sustainability targets have numerous implications (including additional costs or reduction necessities) at different levels in economy and society. Therefore, even though 80% of the Germans rated sustainability as an important issue in their lives in 2018 (Statista, 2018), there is still controversy about who can and should bear which costs of such a transformation and when. Especially when it comes to the decision which path should be taken and at which pace the Great Transformation should be happening, there are very much differing opinions. At the same time, more and more ecological and social changes, e.g., due to climate change are being observed, which is why fundamental change processes appear to be inevitable. As a result, protest groups such as Fridays for Future or Extinction Rebellion, which are calling on society, businesses and politics to finally address the pressing challenges of Sustainability Transformation more seriously and more quickly, have formed in many countries such as Sweden, England and also Germany.

These cursory overviews of the pathways of the Digital Transformation and Sustainability Transformation display that there are crucial developments and influencing conditions at the onset and throughout the courses of Great Transformations that lead to fundamental effects on numerous dimensions of life over a sustained period of time. The long-term nature of the multifarious effects stands out in particular, because it shows that these transformational dynamics will be of long-term significance and thus require a fundamental, deep-structural need for change in order to be dealt with properly. In terms of shaping Great Transformation, this leads to the conclusion that engaging in ongoing transformational dynamics in an early and anticipatory manner offers opportunities to ensure scope for action and influence the course of events in a self-determined manner. Nevertheless the starting and tipping point as well as the crucial momentum for change, which are responsible for a Great Transformation happening, can usually mostly only be identified in retrospect.

All of this leads to a second characteristic of Great Transformations: their highly complex nature. As shown above, more and more areas of politics, economy and everyday life have encountered digital or sustainable transformation processes in recent years. Both digitalization and sustainability have gained momentum as well as ubiquity in socio-technical systems. Great Transformations thus do not only concern a delimited (geographic) space in the sense that only a specific industry, a specific target group or a certain country is being affected. Rather—as the terminology Great Transformation itself already indicates—they are accompanied by a certain mightiness and intricacy in terms of dealing with and also shaping these transformational developments. This also means that there are both inhibiting and dynamizing interactions effects between Great Transformations.

Consequently the challenges accompanying Great Transformations cannot simply be solved by individual measures in politics or in society or substituting (individual) innovations. Furthermore, not everyone in a society is aware of the breadth and depth of the interdependencies and effects of action, mainly also because every individual has different points of contact with and perspectives on the Great Transformations. After all the exact national costs or global impacts of a Sustainability Transformation initiated too late are not—or at least not in toto—tangible for every individual. Therefore it is not surprising that divergences between postulated and actual action in the German economy and society can be observed (Umweltbundesamt, 2019, p. 11). Similarly, the consequences of a delayed digitalization are only beginning to become apparent in small sections. A good example for this is the recent discussion about the market power of Huawei and its economic and geopolitical effects in the context of the 5G network expansion. Thus, such developments are not only relevant for economic policy but also for numerous other areas (including data protection and personal freedoms). Ultimately, also in Germany this raises the question in which kind of digital world people want to live in the future, i.e., what changes in both private and professional contexts are acceptable to them. This question is the basis of a necessary debate about a strategic goal of the transformation process.

In order to be able to deal with transformations with such characteristics in a formative way, it needs acceptance for fundamental and profound changes, out-of-the-box-thinking as well as the willingness and ability to actually implement these changes.

Against the backdrop of the complexity and the multifarious interdependent implications outlined here, it is not surprising that Great Transformations are also characterized by a highly distinct impact on society as a whole. Although these transformation processes can be ignored in the short run, they cannot be avoided in the medium and long run. However, this inevitably results in a need for every individual to make an effort and to deal with the situation, at least if the aim is to actively participate in shaping the transformation process, instead of having it determined by others. At the same time, it must be taken into account that these fundamental changes occurring in Great Transformations will yield both “winners” and “losers.” Partly because of this varying degree of adaptability (Dolata, 2008), a Great Transformation is naturally approached in very different ways, which in turn leads to a longer, more complex and also more stagnant decision making process on how to deal with its challenges in a democratic social systems such as it is prevailing in Germany.

Krcmar (2018) therefore says with regard to the Digital Transformation at the macro level that it is inevitable, irreversible, tremendously fast and fraught with uncertainty (Krcmar, 2018, p. 10). For the characteristic of inevitability, Krcmar (2018, p. 7) argues that digital technologies are already helping to find solutions to comprehensive challenges such as demographic transition, urbanization and globalization. Regarding the irreversibility, he points out the much better cost-benefit ratio and the profound user loyalty.

In the Sustainability Transformation, this highly distinct impact on society can be seen in the frequently postulated generational conflict, in which consequences of and conclusions for actions are perceived differently by the generations. In order to minimize the negative consequences of past actions and behavior for the future and not to have to bear the costs alone, the younger generation in particular is demanding for the older generation to change its views and behavioral norms (like reducing meat consumption or frequent flying). In a speech at a UN climate conference in Poland in 2018, the well-known youth climate activist Greta Thunberg said: “You say that you love your children above everything else. And yet you are stealing their future. Until you start focusing on what needs to be done rather than what is politically possible, there is no hope” (Thunberg, 2018, p. 15–16). Regardless of whether these demands are considered justified, fundamental changes to a (traditional) system of values and norms are, however, not easy to implement.

The preceding remarks already indicate the fourth characteristic of the Great Transformation: the global reach. It becomes apparent that the transformative dynamics of digitalization and sustainability are not spatially limited, but have global significance. With regard to the global climate challenges, for instance, it is not sufficient to address them in Germany alone. Instead global interdependencies must also be taken into account. After all, the way these transformations are handled in Germany has an impact on the world, but vice versa global developments also affect the way in which Germany deals with the subject of Great Transformations, regardless of whether one’s looking at the political, corporate or social level.

In the case of the Digital Transformation, these interaction effects can, e.g., be seen in goods, which have been decoupled from the physical production location. Digitalization and technical progress give rise to products² that can be offered with marginal costs = 0 (Pätzold, 2019, p. 45). The interaction of globalization and digitalization thus becomes an acceleration factor. On the one hand, increased globalization leads to more competition and higher cost pressures. On the other hand, increased digitization leads to falling costs, which initially stimulates competition and cost pressure. This disembogues into a spiral (Petersen, 2020, p. 27). As proprietary ecosystems companies that have already undergone technological leaps in development often do not only dominate essential internet offers and markets. As operators of the central infrastructures, they are also key drivers of innovation, regulate access to the network, structure users_’ communication and as major employers also shape working conditions (Dolata, 2018, p. 101). Therefore digital-technological sovereignty and handling different actor constellations are key. Particularly US internet corporations have obtained a global supremacy over the past two decades. For Europe, this means that there is an increasing global power shift, to which it must respond according to its own interest (Schauf, 2021, p. 7). Therefore, it is not surprising that there is more and more discussion in society and politics in Europe and Germany about how such developments (e.g., digital tax) and dependencies (e.g., data security) can and should be handled in terms of sovereignty.

These central characteristics of Great Transformations, which could of course only be outlined briefly here, show that they are typically accompanied by fundamental, intergenerational, intertemporal and international challenges for numerous dimensions of life in Germany. In retrospect, it is apparent that digitalization and sustainability as the two main drivers of the Digital and Sustainability Transformations in the present have not only put pressure to change on the economy and its players. There are also more and more points of contact with the processes and goals of these transformation contexts in politics and everyday life as well.

At the same time, however, the actual action observed in society, politics and businesses also shows that the ability to adapt is not (yet) cumulatively developed enough to move from a reactive to an active position when it comes to shaping transformation processes. This becomes evident in Germany in, e.g., the current discussions on achieving its self-imposed climate targets. Existing traditional structures and procedures in particular are stretched to their limits when it comes to actively shaping Great Transformations instead of just “letting them happen.” However, considering that the realization of economic prosperity and the creation of social justice are two important categories of socially accepted political governance goals in Germany, learning how to take a more active perspective is inevitable.

With this objective, entrepreneurial thinking and acting is predestined to be relevant in dealing with Great Transformations. In this context, the way of acting does not only refer to entrepreneurs and their innovative economic activities like creating new products or services however. Instead an entrepreneurial mindset can also help in politics and society in order to be able to break out of traditional patterns of action, which might inhibit transformational dynamics. In particular, the willingness to embark on new paths, to create new structures and to align one’s actions with transformation goals are abilities that can be helpful in actively shaping transformation processes. Especially in liberal democratic social systems, entrepreneurial thinking and acting can thus be a key factor in actively dealing with Great Transformations in a socially desired and legitimized way.

With all that being said, the question as to how the existing potential in Germany can be exploited and maybe even new potential can be generated arises. How can more entrepreneurial individuals and organizations—and therefore more “out of the box thinking”—be systematically recruited or developed in Germany in order to shape Great Transformation processes in a targeted and systematic manner, while still respecting the prevailing core values and system structures? This key question is the starting point for the newly created Erschließungs-Approach, which is presented below.

3 Erschließung as a New Concept to Approach Entrepreneurial Personalities and Organizations

As shown before, a wide variety of challenges at different societal levels go hand in hand with Great Transformations. In the context of both the Sustainability Transformation and the Digital Transformation, increasing pressure to change has become apparent for players in economy, politics and society. Although the need for change has been increasingly recognized and publicly discussed in Germany in recent years, the adaptability and the actual behavior toward the object of Great Transformation have not changed at the same pace. Intention and willingness on the one hand and the factual acting and doing on the other hand continue to diverge cumulatively.

In order to be able to realize a change in behavior, e.g., in the Sustainability Transformation, binding guidelines and regulations are therefore increasingly called for in Germany. The recent Covid-19 pandemic has shown that such an approach appears to be purposeful and appropriate in the short term, especially in acute crisis situations. Even though Great Transformations are often even rightfully depicted as urgent and necessary, pushing them forwards (only) by enforcing new and even more restrictive laws usually encounters some resistance in Germany. There are various reasons for that, which can be traced back not only to global interactions, but also to normative constituents and traditions in particular. A few of them will be briefly discussed, as they form the axiomatic baseline of the approach presented below.

Firstly, the German polity is based on a free democratic fundamental order. The freedom of action of the individual is anchored in the constitution itself (Deutscher Bundestag, 2020, Sect. 2). The freedom of the individual person as well as the free development of the personality is a highly valued good, which must always be taken into account in legislation, as also shown by the current ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the national Climate Protection Act. Against this background, it is also understandable that new prohibitions restricting this individual freedom are often not approved of easily, especially when affecting personal possessions as well as daily routines.

Secondly, trying to shape transformation exclusively through national laws in Germany will likely lead to difficulties concerning increased global networking and mobility. Particularly with regard to the behavior of companies in the context of the Sustainability Transformation, it is therefore necessary to consider: Germany like many other Western countries has experienced outsourcing and even movement of whole companies or divisions to less developed countries with less strict environmental and labor protection acts within the last decades. Therefore new laws and regulations on businesses are often seen skeptically and not passed without thorough consideration about the impacts for the German economy.

Thirdly, these fundamental norms of freedom and self-determination are also reflected in the traditional education system in Germany. Within the system prevails a certain understanding of education called Bildung, which is unique to Germany. Even though education is often used as an equivalent, the scope of the term Bildung actually goes beyond that. The idea of Bildung was largely conceptualized by the Prussian scholar Wilhelm von Humboldt in the early nineteenth century and has remained the basis for the German school and university system ever since (Konrad, 2010, p. 45, 62). The goal of Bildung is for individuals to be in line with themselves and to develop their own personality, which sets them apart from other individuals. In the spirit of the Enlightenment, the focus is on the freedom and self-determination of the individual. Therefore Bildung is a mutual process involving the individual as well as its environment (Konrad, 2010, p. 39–40). This educational ideal is omnipresent in Germany schools and universities until today. A permanent and comprehensive external determination, for example, through the sole dominance of state guidelines or laws, would thus naturally be opposed to by people, who were educated in this kind of system.

Therefore, a new approach, which places special emphasis on enlightened, voluntary and self-sustaining actions, rather than primarily or even solely promoting new laws and regulations, will be presented below. This approach could potentially help with shaping Great Transformations more strongly in the medium and long term, especially if it is used to develop and promote entrepreneurial mindsets at the economic, political and social levels. The approach discussed here can therefore be understood as an attempt to offer a way to act here and now, but still in a system-compatible manner. So instead of forcing transformational changes only by regulations and laws, it wants to approach especially entrepreneurial personalities and organization and win them around to contribute to the dynamics of ongoing Great Transformations. An important objective is therefore that entrepreneurial personalities and organizations do not only recognize Great Transformations and acknowledge their existence, but also actually voluntarily adapt their behavior accordingly, not because they are forced or pressured to do so, but rather because they have come to the conclusion that this is actually what they want to do. The handling of transformational dynamics and behavioral change, which has been more reactive and crisis-ridden in the Sustainability Transformation and Digital Transformation in Germany so far, could thus become more anticipative and proactive.

When focusing on voluntariness and acting on one’s own accord, a subject-oriented rather than an object-oriented approach seems more suitable. Thus, instead of starting with all kinds of short-term external stimuli, which are intended to get the individuals’ behavior right where the transformation’s promotors want it to be for a short while, more attention should be paid to identifying the point the entrepreneurial personalities and organizations are currently at in terms of their knowledge, abilities, perceptions, beliefs and also emotions first. Once the starting point is known, it is much easier to approach the entrepreneurial personalities and organizations in question in the right way and help them to figure out, where they themselves—after a thorough consideration of the ongoing transformation dynamics and its implications—want to and can get to with regard to their competences, traits and values.

A new and integrative approach, which tries to do exactly this, is the approach of so-called Erschließung, which was newly developed in Wuppertal and has been continuously refined over several years. Erschließung is a German terminus, which can originally be found in various different academic fields like geology, theology, pedagogy or even library science and urban land-use planning. Even though the precise meaning of the terminus varies more or less with regard to the specific area of application, it becomes clear that Erschließung in a first general understanding refers to the act of opening to perception of the present, similar like Luhmann’s cognitive opening (Luhmann, 1993, p. 83).

Based on this, the Erschließungs-Approach takes the terminus and its original meaning and tries to apply it to (in this case) entrepreneurial personalities and organizations in the context of Great Transformations. However, there is no general “Theory of Erschließung” in economics or any other discipline yet. Therefore, reference approaches and theories, which are concerned with a similar matter, were harnessed, combined and extended further to create this new and integrative Erschließungs-Approach. In particular reference theories, which address the question of how to make someone accessible to, reflect on and change their mind towards something, were considered. Erschließung here is understood to be the addressing and winning of individuals or target groups (in this case entrepreneurial personalities and organizations) for a sustainable and (as time goes by increasingly) self-regulated involvement with a hitherto subjectively as irrelevant (or at least not as relevant in the sense that it has not affected their everyday acting and decision making all that much) classified subject area as well as area of accountability and responsibility on a voluntary basis. The overall goal is for the entrepreneurial personalities and organizations to further establish and deepen some type of commitment or belief and to be both willing and able to make mature and responsible decisions with regard to their behavior.

As Erschließung as defined above is a rather abstract concept, it makes sense to briefly illustrate the mindsets of entrepreneurial personalities and organizations before and after the process of Erschließung in order to make the general idea more comprehensible. Entrepreneurial personalities and organizations which have not already undergone some kind of natural Erschließung for the transformation dynamic in question would typically start from a position where they concentrate superficially on their own microcosms and have at least so far paid little attention to, e.g., Great Transformations taking place. Points of contact with Great Transformations, such as the Digital Transformation, primarily result from individual professional and private experiences. Consequently, there are differences in economy, politics and society as to whether and to what extent transformation processes are taken into account in behavior. Naturally, their decisions would be mainly based on their previous attitudes and own individual short-term goals. Therefore they are not (or at least not knowingly and intentionally) contributing to solving the challenges the Great Transformation in question is posing on them and on the society as a whole.

Entrepreneurial personalities and organizations, which have undergone some kind of natural or systematically and intentionally brought about Erschließung, are aware of the ongoing transformation dynamics and their implications. Their decisions, which are of course still geared to their individual goals, are therefore formed in view of the context of the Great Transformation taking place. Therefore they are able to knowingly and intentionally contribute to solving the challenges the Great Transformation in question is posing on themselves and society as a whole. The potential attributed to entrepreneurial thinking and acting in the context of actively shaping Great Transformations can thus be systematically exploited.

The main challenge when trying to address and win entrepreneurial personalities and organizations to engage in ongoing or future transformation dynamics is of course to make out how to design the Erschließungs-Approach. The approach should be designed in such a way that the full potential, which entrepreneurial personalities and organizations clearly hold in a liberal democratic society when it comes to tackling future challenges in the transformation context, can be tapped both efficiently and also legitimately. Erschließung itself is therefore naturally positioned between the poles of coercion and instruction on the one hand and solicitation on the other hand. Self-evidently no entrepreneurial personality or organization is going to initiate and execute major changes in their routine decision-making paradigm only because promoters of a certain Great Transformation like politicians or scientists ask them to do so. Theoretically speaking the other extreme, which would be to force for changes by passing a large set of new legislations and maybe even altering the fundamental laws, would most certainly be more effective. However, as indicated before, this would not be legitimate in a democratic and free society. The Erschließungs-Approach is based on the assumption that legitimate change needs a certain form of genuine inner acceptance that cannot be achieved by force. At the same time, this does not mean that new laws and legislations cannot help to create more structure and orientation as well as an impetus for behavioral adjustments.

Because the underlying axiomatic of the Erschließungs-Approach requires the entrepreneurial personalities’ and organizations’ involvement in the subject matter of the selected Great Transformation to be voluntary, enlightened and self-sustaining time also plays an important role. After all genuine inner acceptance is a process that may take even personalities and organizations of an entrepreneurial—and therefore to some extent innovative—nature a while.

But how can the engagement with (and ideally in the end the inner acceptance for) a Great Transformation, its dynamics and implications be created or at least promoted? The road map illustration (Fig. 1) tries to model the process of Erschließung. It shows that the intention of Erschließung can vary individually in business, politics and society. There are different views on and connections with Great Transformations, which are ultimately evident in the way these transformations are handled. Thus, the intention of Erschließung is not just there from the beginning, but negotiated and formed by society, institutions and individuals. Furthermore it is distinguished between two ends of a continuum reaching from “Forced Behavioral Adaptation” to “Erschließung.” While “Forced Behavioral Adaptation” is an object-oriented approach shaped by a rather instructing and influencing manner and lots of external incentives, “Erschließung” is a subject-oriented approach shaped by a voluntary matter and little external incentives.

Fig. 1

The process of Erschließung

In the lower part of the model, the construction of the theoretical foundation of the Erschließungs-Approach, which disembogues in the manifestation of Erschließung, is illustrated. As mentioned before, various concepts and theories from different disciplines are extracted, combined and further extended in the sense that they—or at least some of their elements—are used as reference theories. Even though there are for sure even more potential reference disciplines, the three which were selected as main input here are marketing, learning and didactics and organizational development as they offer concepts, theories and models, which have been found to be especially valuable and insightful with regard to the issue of Erschließung.

Marketing theory can provide helpful references, especially at the beginning of an Erschließungs-process, because marketing generally has the goal of drawing attention to specific matters. Within the field of marketing, there is a variety of established theories and measures, which have goals such as creating a certain image, forming a purchase intention, increasing brand awareness and assuring customer as well as employee satisfaction and loyalty (Esch et al., 2008, p. 27–29). An important concept in this context is commitment. Meyer and Allen understand commitment as a psychological bond between the company and its employees, which can be sub-classified into three dimensions: the affective, the normative and the continuance dimension (Meyer & Allen, 1990, p. 3). While affective commitment refers to the emotional bond between an individual and the organization, normative commitment describes a bond due to a certain feeling of obligation and continuance commitment concerns the bond that stems from rather cognitive factors like the costs of leaving the organization. The affective commitment dimension seems to be highly promising with regard to the Erschließungs-Approach, because it is mainly formed through acceptance of and identification with the organization and hence its goals and values (Meyer et al., 2002, p. 21) can therefore potentially do the same for Great Transformations.

As the overall goal of Erschließung is for the entrepreneurial personalities and organizations to be both willing and able to make mature and responsible decisions, theories in the field of didactics and learning are bound to offer interesting insights as well. One theory that should definitely be mentioned here is the so-called “Kategoriale Bildung” by Wolfgang Klafki. As the name indicates, Klafki assumes that Bildung is achieved through categories, which are discovered by the individual (subject) through the engagement with its environment (object). With each discovery of a new category, new aspects of the environment become visible, which in turn can then lead to the discovery of even more new categories (Klafki, 2007, p. 144). As a matter of fact, Klafki even refers to this ongoing process as “Doppelseitige³ Erschließung.” This is relevant for the Erschließungs-Approach presented here, because Klafki’s theory offers an analysis on how individuals deal with factualities like encountered problems and their repercussions in a holistic way, which goes beyond intellectual reflection. Thus, an individual-focused learning process is outlined, which on the one hand refers to knowledge and skills regarding the specific learning content and on the other hand offers the individual possibilities to understand new topics, facts and circumstances (Stübig & Stübig, 2018, p. 34). Another well-known approach that deals with inner engagement and acceptance from the field of learning is the so-called affective taxonomy of educational objectives. Taxonomies of educational objectives are schemes by which one can organize and hierarchize educational objectives logically (Ott, 2011, p. 153). This approach is particularly interesting in the context of Erschließung as it can provide further insights into how to create normative commitment, which was already discussed in the marketing section. According to Krathwohl, the original author of this taxonomy, full internalization is achieved when the individual has taken in certain values, principles, rules and norms to the extent that they become the basis for the individual’s perceptions, value judgments and actions (Krathwohl et al., 1964, p. 95–96). This taxonomy is a valuable instrument in the context of Erschließung, because it not only helps to understand but also enables to spark and even plan affective learning processes. Even though it is considered possible to change mindsets by, e.g., trying to generate certain emotions toward an object or objective (Fabrigar & Petty, 1999), there is of course a fine line between addressing and trying to win someone for something on an enlightened and voluntary basis and practicing some kind of reeducation. As the latter is explicitly not what Erschließung is supposed to be about, it has to be stressed that when theoretic tools from didactics and learning are used, it is important that the learning process is about encouraging the entrepreneurial personalities and organizations to grapple with their own and alternative views in order to clarify for themselves, whether they consider an adjustment in their own canon of values necessary and/or helpful.

Because the aspects from learning and didactics discussed above focus more on the learning process on an individual level, it is important to further also turn the attention to the learning process of entities consisting of multiple individuals. In the field of organizational development, there are plenty of concepts, models and theories that are concerned with change and learning within organizations. These are basically ideas that can possibly be applied to politics or society as a whole. Therefore, it is another discipline that also offers interesting insights for the Erschließungs-Approach. A well-known theory, which was developed in the last 1950s, but is still regarded highly relevant in organizational development until this very day, is the three-stage-model on social change by Kurt Lewin. Within the model, there are three phases of change: Unfreezing, Moving and Freezing (Lewin, 1958, p. 210–211). The first phase (Unfreezing) is mainly about the development of a willingness to change, which happens when the old system with its known structures gets out of equilibrium. In the second phase (Moving), this willingness to change is followed by the adaption or development of new attitudes, values and behaviors. Within the third phase (Freezing), these new attitudes, values and behaviors are stabilized until a new equilibrium system has formed (Becker, 2013, p. 747). A simple conclusion with regard to the process of Erschließung, which we can draw from Lewin’s model, is, e.g., that real and to some extent sustainable change in attitudes, values and behaviors cannot happen until the old system is perceived to be inefficient, inferior or simply wrong.

Even though only shown in an exemplifying manner here, it becomes clear that there are countless valuable theories and approaches that can be harnessed and combined in order to initiate or advance the process of Erschließung. However, how exactly the approach is compounded in each specific individual case depends on many variable factors like the occasion and degree of Erschließung, the means and timeframe available and (maybe even most importantly) the anthropogenic and socio-cultural preconditions of the target group. The chances and limitations of the Erschließungs-Approach in the context of Great Transformations, especially the Sustainability and Digital Transformation, are therefore discussed in more detail below.

4 Shaping the Digital and Sustainability Transformation—Opportunities and Limitations of the Erschließungs-Approach

After the essential features of the Erschließungs-Approach have been presented theoretically, it is now time to look at the possibilities and limitations that this approach holds in the context of the Digital Transformation and Sustainability Transformation in Germany.

The line of argumentation presented in this chapter has shown that the challenges, characteristics and implications of Great Transformations in Germany can only be met in a targeted manner with strategic, proactive and anticipatory behavior. The Erschließungs-Approach presented here makes it possible to draw attention to transformation challenges in business, politics and society early on and in a systematic manner. Consequently, the Erschließungs-Approach has the potential to expand both the scope and the timeframe for action, which is becoming increasingly important, also from a financial standpoint, particularly with regard to the Sustainability Transformation (Stern, 2007, p. xv). Furthermore, this applies just as much if not even more to the Digital Transformation, Germany as well as other Western countries can hardly afford to miss out on these Great Transformations if they want to remain globally competitive in the long run.

Although the Erschließungs-Approach could (and perhaps later on even should) in principle also be applied to the general public, the focus is initially on entrepreneurial personalities and organizations here. After all, in a liberal democratic social system with free market, entrepreneurial thinking and acting is understood to play a central role in actively bringing about and shaping progress. With regard to companies in the context of digitalization, Hardwardt and Schmutte, e.g., state that modern organizations require new types of architectures in order to be flexible, agile and fast and that classic hierarchies and functional assignments no longer work (Hardwardt & Schmutte, 2020, p. 8). As a result, the Erschließungs-Approach can help to ensure that precisely this entrepreneurial potential can be incorporated more systematically at an earlier stage with regard to managing Great Transformtion challenges.

In addition to creating attention and an initial engagement with the subject, Erschließung can also contribute to establish a conscious, well-founded and enlightened behavior with regard to the two Great Transformations discussed here. Previous behavior is questioned, evaluated and possibly modified against the background of these transformation contexts. The newly conceptualized approach of Erschließung is thus not just another appellative approach. Rather, it goes beyond that as it is characterized by its enlightening-educational character. Addressing critical moral questions like do we want to, can we and if so, should we be allowed to change people’s attitudes and behaviors shows that Erschließung is not designed to influence individuals in a one-sided or even suggestive manner. Thus, the Erschließungs-Approach offers a great potential insofar that such “re-education” would not be responsible from a pedagogical and didactical perspective when there is an enlightened understanding of education and society like it is the case in Germany—regardless of the transformation context.

On the contrary, with the help of the Erschließungs-Approach, cognitive dissonances or affective divergences on the individual level can be made obvious and conscious. Especially in the context of the Sustainability Transformation, it can still be observed that a large proportion of the population in Germany considers ecological and social challenges to be important (Umweltbundesamt, 2021, p. 2), but their own actions, especially when it comes to active participation as well as mobility and everyday life consumption decisions, are much less often aligned with these opinions (Umweltbundesamt, 2021, p. 6). Moreover, the Erschließungs-Approach makes it possible to promote categorical (educational) insights into complex and persistent phenomena that cannot be ignored or shirked from in the medium and long run like the Digital Transformation and the Sustainability Transformation. Hence, such a critical-emancipatory natured process of Erschließung can also form a substantial basis for dealing with future (new) Great Transformation challenges.

In addition to these advantages, another strength of the Erschließungs-Approach lies in its subject orientation. Erschließung focuses not only on the object of the Great Transformation itself but also on the subject and its preconditions. This way individual insecurities or fears can be addressed and excessive demands can be avoided. With reference to digitalization, Gramß et al., for instance, state that people with few points of contact with digital formats and content in particular are afraid to lose their jobs and are therefore generally closed off to digital transformation processes (Gramß et al., 2020 p. 184). According to Meier and Seufert (2016), this can result in a lack of motivation and interest in adapting to new requirements (Gramß et al., 2020, p. 184–185). Thus Erschließung is, as already indicated above, not per se limited to entrepreneurial personalities and organizations, but could potentially also be applied to the various other targets groups on the individual, political and corporate level, which would meet the frequently postulated demand to bring as many people as possible “on board.”

The legitimacy of the Erschließungs-Approach resulting from the emancipatory basic principle and subject orientation is further strengthened by the fact that it simultaneously includes the established socio-technical and traditional normative framework conditions of a society. Accordingly, Great Transformations are reflected with regard to existing overriding values and norms within the process of Erschließung. Applied to Germany and the Digital Transformation, this means, for instance, that digitalization and its implications are not only considered against the backdrop of technical possibilities and future economic prosperity in the Erschließungs-Approach. Rather, the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution, such as humanity, freedom and sovereignty, gain center stage as well. Ideally, this can result in increased acceptance of changing one’s individual behavior and thus contributing to the realization of transformation processes, because not only transparency but also a deeper understanding for overriding social values and norms is created. All in all, this can contribute to the formation of conscious and self-determined values as well as cognitively and affectively justified behavior among the subjects of Erschließung in a systematic and profound way.

At the same time, the opportunities identified here are of course also accompanied by some theoretical limitations of the Erschließungs-Approach. The legitimacy of the Erschließungs-Approach, which is shaped by several dimensions, is also characterized by an open-endedness of the process of Erschließung. This means that at the end of such a process, there does not automatically have to be a dedication to actively dealing with and shaping the Digital and/or Sustainability Transformation. Even a well-founded rejection of the specific Erschließungs-topic must be accepted within a liberal, democratic understanding of society and the above-mentioned critical-emancipatory understanding of education. Erschließung thus takes place in between the poles of a need for change in society as a whole and individual goals and actions.

Although it is of course impossible to resolve this tension completely, the Erschließungs-Approach can help to meet this fundamental challenge. By taking into account the constituent views, values and norms of a society, transformation phenomena and their often multilayered, reciprocal implications can be reflected systematically and a well-founded position towards them can be taken. With the identification of comprehensive constituent paradigmatic goals and guiding principles, existing structures can subsequently be questioned and possibly changed. Such a transparent, strategic “derivation system” is particularly important, because individual change processes of Great Transformation can have both positive and negative implications for different groups within a society. This becomes apparent when looking, e.g., at change processes in the automotive industry in the context of the Sustainability Transformation. The increasing substitution of gasoline and diesel engines by electric engines results in numerous fundamental changes in the entire socio-technical system of individual transportation, e.g., in supplying industries or production and supply chains.

Despite its systematic nature, an Erschließungs-Approach, which is based on voluntariness and sovereignty, has another limitation. Making people aware of and winning them over for the active shaping of Great Transformations is a complex and challenging task for society as a whole. Accordingly, Erschließung requires a certain amount of time. Particularly in transformation contexts such as sustainability, in which the pressure to change is steadily increasing, this amount of time might not (be able to) be granted. Especially in short-term crisis situations or shortly before reaching decisive tipping points, legal guidelines and state control, such as currently evident in the Covid-19 pandemic in Germany, might therefore have to supplement such an Erschließung if necessary. However, with that being said, it has to be considered that such ecological and social tipping points are difficult to determine and that systematic Erschließung initiated at an earlier point in time could have prevented such a pronounced pressure to change in a reactive and short-term manner, too.

Another thing that might be perceived as a limitation is that the Erschließungs-Approach is a theoretical model, and due to its abstract nature, it seems rather difficult to apply it in practice. However, as mentioned before, every situation in which Erschließung could potentially be practiced is different and there are many variable factors like the occasion and degree of Erschließung, the means and timeframe available and the anthropogenic and socio-cultural preconditions of the target group that have to be taken into consideration when trying to practice Erschließung on the economic, political or societal level. Therefore, it is simply not possible to offer some kind of one-size-fit-them-all blueprint when it comes to dealing with such complex things as Great Transformations. However, what is contributable and hence provided in the scope of this chapter is a general model, which offers a formally constant but contentually variable framework of the main dimensions and variables of the process of Erschließung.

Despite the discussed limitations, it can be concluded that overall the opportunities outweigh the limitations of the newly created Erschließungs-Approach. The concept of Erschließung goes beyond existing approaches in theory and practice and combines different ideas, instruments and models, for example, from marketing, didactics and organizational development theory, which can be valuable for addressing, winning for and bringing about the behavioral changes that are significant with regard to Great Transformations. Particularly in light of the challenges and characteristics of the two large-scale transformations outlined above, it therefore seems sensible to use this new approach to bundle existing potential and to approach and address current and future entrepreneurial personalities and organizations in an even more well-founded and systematic way.

5 Conclusions and Future Research

This chapter discussed the relevance of entrepreneurial mindsets on the levels of economy, politics and society in the context of Great Transformations in Germany, using the examples of the Sustainability Transformation and the Digital Transformation. The question that was addressed in particular here was how entrepreneurial personalities and organizations in Germany can be made aware of and won over to engage in transformational processes in an efficient, but also legitimate way, in order to rise to the challenge of actively shaping these Great Transformations.

As there is still a lack of research with regard to general characteristics, special features and implications of Great Transformations, a general overview of this phenomenon was given. Using the Sustainability Transformation and the Digital Transformation as prominent examples, four characteristics of Great Transformations were derived inductively. The characteristics that could be established were: (1) a long-lasting nature, which leads to fundamental changes in numerous dimensions of the way of life over time, (2) a high level of complexity and interdependencies, (3) a profound impact on society as a whole and (4) a global reach in the sense that Great Transformations are not spatially limited. With the help of these four characteristics, it was demonstrated that Great Transformations are typically accompanied by fundamental, intergenerational, intertemporal and international challenges for numerous dimensions of life.

At the same time, it could be shown that Germany has not managed to deal with Great Transformations in a proactive and formative way but continues to persist in existing, familiar and traditional routines and structures. Although the need for change has been increasingly recognized and publicly discussed in Germany in recent years, the adaptability and the actual behavior seem to lag behind. Deep structural changes are either not carried out at all or are only carried out selectively or briefly in crisis situations. Since adjusting to changed surroundings and parameters, creating new structures and embarking on new paths are attributes, which are typically associated with entrepreneurial thinking and acting in countries with democratic social systems and free markets, it was argued that entrepreneurial personalities and organizations are likely to play an important role in this context not only on an economic, but also on a political and societal level.

Therefore, a newly conceptualized theoretical approach, which is distinctly designed for the addressing and winning of entrepreneurial personalities and organizations in economy, politics and society in a systematical matter, was presented here. The Erschließungs-Approach is an integrative approach that extracts and combines a variety of insightful reference concepts and theories from different academic disciplines such as marketing, didactics and organizational development. Because it is specifically tailored to the prevailing circumstances and structures in Germany, the approach emphasizes enlightened, voluntary and self-sustaining actions. Doing so the Erschließungs-Approach offers an effective, but also legitimate way to address and win entrepreneurial personalities and organizations to contribute to actively shaping ongoing and future Great Transformations as well as tackling the challenges associated with them.

The Erschließungs-Approach has various advantages and opportunities. The first one is the subject orientation, meaning that Erschließung is not only concerned with the object of the Great Transformation and its properties, but also with the subject and its preconditions. Another advantage, which is closely linked to this subject orientation, is the voluntary nature of the initial and ongoing involvement, which also implies an open-endedness of the process of Erschließung. Although this can be understood as a limitation of this approach with regard to the goal of transformational change processes, it also points to another important characteristic of Erschließung and thus a strength of this approach, its enlightening-educational character. The target person or the target group of Erschließung should precisely not be heteronomous or even re-educated, but consciously and reflectively come to grips with the object of Digital or Sustainability Transformation so that they can behave in a cognitively as well as affectively justified manner in the future. This creates a stability of possible behavioral modifications as well as the advantage of being able to draw on these categorical educational insights in the future, in the face of new transformation challenges. Overall, this results in a pronounced legitimacy of the Erschließungs-Approach.

Despite these advantages, however, limitations of the Erschließungs-Approach must also be taken into account. In addition to the above-mentioned challenge of acting in between the poles of social necessity and individual autonomy, the critical temporal dimension of a Erschließungs-process must also be pointed out here. Particularly in the context of Sustainability Transformation, this is often no longer granted for the various reasons outlined above. Overall, however, the advantages outweigh the limitations, which is why the Erschließungs-Approach is generally suitable to systematically address and win over entrepreneurial personalities and organizations at an early stage of a Great Transformation in order to shape it actively.

Against this background, the above-mentioned fields and their interrelationships should continue to be addressed in the future research. It would be interesting to have a closer look at how entrepreneurial personalities and organizations on the different levels addressed here have been dealing with the Sustainability Transformation and the Digital Transformation in Germany so far. As established above, the postulated and actual action in the German economy, politics and society with regard to Great Transformations is diverging, which shows that the ability to adapt is not cumulatively developed enough yet to move from a reactive to an active position when it comes to shaping Great Transformations. Thus, there are various research endeavors of potential interest.

Firstly, more foundational research regarding Great Transformations would certainly help to understand the phenomenon as a whole better. Even though there are various models of change or transformational processes, there is still little general theory concerned with the main characteristics of or the typical course of events in Great Transformations like the two discussed here. Also, we do not know yet at which stages and to what degree Great Transformations can even be shaped actively. Analytic research of that kind could offer the knowledge base to develop more concrete recommendations of action and ideally maybe even some kind of early warning system. With the importance of didactics and learning as stressed above, it would also be interesting to see how categorical educational processes could be initiated even more systematically and at an earlier stage. Focusing on the general education system, the school subjects and the educational goals, future research is necessary to, e.g., identify legitimate starting points to discuss further development possibilities for the existing school system.

Furthermore, the role of politics in the context of Great Transformations could definitely be part of further research. As there is a junction between formal legitimacy and informal legitimacy of decision making processes in democratic countries like Germany, politicians in their representing role of the people might create a decisive interest of the functionality of the Erschließungs-Approach as a part of the “will-forming process.” Therefore, in particular the question how politicians can be made aware of the importance and won for the proactive shaping of Great Transformations in a systematic manner seems important and how they understand their role vis-à-vis the electorate in particular and society in general.

Last but not least, entrepreneurship and management theory need to draw more attention to Great Transformations and how they affect businesses and markets. Especially the Sustainability Transformation can be considered as an exceptional challenge for businesses, because it is—as pointed out in Sect. 2—not primarily induced due to leaps in technology, but rather through the scientifically proven need to change the way we operate economically and in everyday life. Of course there already is research in some areas, like sustainable business models or sustainable controlling and accounting tools, but so far little attention has been paid to how the Sustainability Transformation as an external force has been dealt with in business theory and practice so far. After all, businesses are essential when it comes to creating a country’s economic prosperity and businesses need to find a way to adapt to the new circumstances accompanying the Sustainability Transformation in order to survive economically speaking.