Sustainability and decarbonisation? Austrian industrial workers recognise these as unavoidable necessities. Yet, their greatest concern is not the transformation itself, but the politics surrounding it. Constant policy reversals, ambiguous targets and contradictory signals are steadily eroding their confidence in the socio-ecological transformation. Recent qualitative research exploring these perspectives reveals a striking finding: workers embrace sustainability but demand strategic consistency rather than political vacillation.

The research, based on interviews with employees from the metal, chemical and automotive sectors, shows that transformation measures themselves are not workers’ main concern. Rather, it is the convergence of multiple pressures: climate crisis, geopolitical instability, digitalisation, intensifying competition from China and the United States, and relentless cost pressures all compound the challenge. Above all, it is the capriciousness of policymaking that breeds frustration. How can workers believe in a successful transformation when governments stumble over even modest commitments?

Sustainability, but at what price?

Conversations with workers consistently surfaced one critical tension: whenever sustainability enters corporate discussions, cost concerns immediately follow. Climate-neutrality regulations, they report, invariably come with substantial price tags. When governments mandate such measures without adequate support, companies face difficult choices about where to cut spending.

Workers are acutely aware they represent a significant cost factor, leading them to believe they will become the logical targets for savings. They recognise that companies face genuine trade-offs: substantial investments in sustainability without corresponding state support inevitably generate pressure to reduce other costs – primarily labour. This creates a zero-sum dynamic where transformation goals and job security appear mutually exclusive, a perception reinforced by the absence of comprehensive policy frameworks that adequately fund the transition.

Crucially, workers do not oppose sustainability measures themselves. Rather, they criticise inconsistent state regulations and perpetual policy shifts. From their perspective, policy whiplash inevitably burdens their employers. Companies invest heavily to comply with new regulations, only to see governments change direction mid-course. Requirements get scrapped, diluted or fundamentally altered. Planning certainty — the bedrock of business viability — evaporates.

These reversals do not merely create financing headaches. They fundamentally undermine confidence in whether transformation can succeed. Workers expressed near-universal consensus: sustainability yes, but implement it properly or not at all.

Yet cost concerns are only part of workers’ anxieties. Equally troubling is Europe’s lag as evidence-based conclusions regarding the scope, timeline, and financing of necessary transformations remain trapped in political debate rather than guiding coordinated action. Workers repeatedly emphasised that Europe cannot afford such discussions and the resulting policy wavering. Whilst Europe gets mired in detail over these questions, industrial powerhouses worldwide are accelerating.

The United States and China emerged as frequent points of comparison in conversations. Although these countries pursue vastly different strategies, what matters to workers ultimately is economic success. Despite recognising the importance of green initiatives, they perceive current regulations primarily as competitive disadvantages — particularly when they mandate the use of pricier or technically inferior substitutes, such as ecological alternative adhesives or paper-based products replacing plastic components. This is so, firstly, because rival nations face no equivalent obligations and, secondly, because this regulatory asymmetry grants them substantial price advantages.

Workers associate sustainability with enormous costs, which they view as another barrier to matching international competitors. From their perspective, these additional burdens are layered onto pre-existing challenges, including persistent innovation gaps, delayed digitalisation and long-standing concerns about Europe’s industrial competitiveness.

These two nations also significantly shape global market dynamics and wield considerable influence over pricing across various sectors. Whilst the United States retreats towards fossil fuel-driven policies, it is China’s approach — integrating climate objectives into economic planning — that proves particularly relevant for transformation discussions. China’s strategic economic planning has enabled it to catch up with the global north in certain green technologies. The proactive role of the Chinese state proved crucial in this advancement.

Electric vehicles exemplify this shift most clearly. State incentives, European know-how and especially subsidies culminated in China now producing a surplus of electric cars. These vehicles are flooding European markets, offering technically sound, well-designed and, crucially, affordable alternatives. Workers observe this trajectory and question how Europe intends to remain competitive without pursuing a coherent strategy.

These concerns are reinforced by policy choices such as postponing the ban on combustion-engine vehicles. Whilst potentially popular with voters, such delays ultimately exacerbate existing problems, hindering the socio-ecological transformation and diminishing Europe’s ability to remain competitive globally and recover lost ground.

Beyond high-profile debates surrounding electric vehicles, workers highlight regulatory measures that shape their daily experience on the factory floor. Ecological adhesives mandated by EU sustainability standards illustrate the issues metal workers face: these alternatives cost substantially more than conventional products yet deliver inferior performance. What appears as a minor material substitution creates cascading complications in practice.

Workers describe substitutes that compromise efficiency, reduce quality, and demand additional working time to achieve previously straightforward results. Production lines slow, error rates increase, and output suffers. Whilst such difficulties may diminish as processes adapt, the transition period itself imposes significant costs and disruptions. These are not abstract policy questions but concrete concerns affecting workers’ daily reality, where sustainability requirements translate into immediate disadvantages in cost, functionality, and labour intensity. Such experiences reinforce workers’ broader frustrations: bearing transformation costs that competitors avoid, whilst questioning what Europe gains in return.

Notably, however, most workers did not consider that the industrial and economic strategies of China and the United States are linked to fundamentally different societal living standards compared to Europe. This oversight matters because it reflects a deeper legitimacy crisis: if workers believe Europe’s democratic approach to transformation merely handicaps competitiveness without delivering tangible benefits, support for the transition itself erodes. The challenge is not simply technical or economic but fundamentally political. It is making the case that European labour protection, environmental standards and democratic decision-making processes are assets worth preserving, even when they complicate rapid industrial shifts.

What politics must now deliver

Austria’s industrial workers convey a clear message, likely shared by workers across Europe: sustainability requires certainty. Their concerns transcend implementation challenges, addressing fundamental questions of political credibility and global competitiveness. That sustainability strategies are indispensable is hardly contested any more. Decarbonisation strategies in the form of energy-transition measures serve dual purposes: climate protection and strategic independence from volatile suppliers like Russia.

What workers find intolerable, however, are policy frameworks that apply unevenly, shift constantly and ultimately sow doubt about transformation itself. After successive policy reversals, workers genuinely question what priorities their governments are pursuing. The stakes are clear: socio-ecological transformation succeeds only when all stakeholders pull together. Workers’ buy-in is particularly crucial, as they experience policy consequences in their daily reality.

European governments can ill afford further climate-policy reversals. Trust has already been damaged. Rebuilding it requires deliberate effort. What is needed is unequivocal commitment to concrete climate targets, integrated with a coherent industrial strategy. Only such clarity enables companies and workers to plan with confidence, maintaining economic viability whilst navigating profound challenges.