Abstract
A distinct obstacle to mainstreaming sustainability is when strategic actions to integrate sustainability create tensions between a firm’s established identity and its projected image. This study examines how such strategy-image tensions are managed. Based on a qualitative, longitudinal study of luxury sports car manufacturer Porsche during the introduction of electric cars, the analysis traces the discursive process of implementing strategic actions that challenge the legacy product. The findings suggest the reconciliation of strategy-image tensions is a three-stage process: detaching the image from the legacy product, constructing a positive narrative around the new product, and endorsing the fit of the new product category to the corporation. The study contributes to research on incumbent change and managing identity-related tensions. It further contributes to the literature on sustainability mainstreaming with a critical discussion of the ambivalent dynamics that arise when established firms attempt to make sustainability “fit” their legacy.
Keywords
Introduction
Sustainability mainstreaming has been conceptualized in diverse ways, without a single uniform definition across the literature. From a sociological perspective, mainstreaming has been associated with the process through which niche practices acquire broader legitimacy and acceptance (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). In business sustainability research, authors have emphasized that mainstreaming requires that not only niche players and start-ups, but also established firms in mature industries, start integrating more sustainable products and shift toward more sustainable business models (Dangelico & Pujari, 2010; Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010; Schaltegger et al., 2016; Vernay et al., 2022). However, existing work highlights that the corporate integration of sustainability often remains slow and ambiguous, with words and actions not always translating into substantive change (Delmas et al., 2019; Montgomery et al., 2024).
A distinct obstacle to the corporate integration of sustainability is strategy-image tensions; situations in which strategic actions aimed at integrating more sustainable products or business models create tensions between a firm’s established identity and its projected image. This can be the case when a firm’s established identity is deeply anchored in products or business models under growing pressure—for instance in sectors such as chemicals, energy, and automobility—where regulatory and societal demands increasingly require firms to replace legacy products and operations with more sustainable alternatives (Rezaeian et al., 2024; Schupfer & Soppe, 2025). From an identity and image perspective, integrating more sustainable alternatives that threaten the core business represents a fundamental challenge for such firms. The challenge lies in maintaining authenticity while convincing constituents of a projected future image and implementing strategic actions that clash with the present corporate identity (De Keyser & Langley, 2025). This is not a trivial task because actions that challenge the established identity can trigger contestation among constituents who must revise their established meaning systems regarding what the corporation stands for. This process can be fraught with tensions, especially in corporations with a strong legacy and history (Cloutier & Ravasi, 2020; Ravasi & Phillips, 2011; Suddaby & Foster, 2017).
Research on corporate identity, image, and strategic change has long examined how legacy firms respond to environmental shifts and pressures, including change processes with strong emotional resonance (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Ravasi et al., 2019; Suddaby & Foster, 2017). While most of this work has focused on how the associated tensions are managed internally, less attention has been paid to how corporate representatives publicly explain a future projected image and broadcast strategic actions that conflict with the established identity. As De Keyser and Langley (2025, p. 2) note, “there has been little consideration given to how leaders might discursively navigate strategy-identity tensions in their ongoing communication with key stakeholders (e.g., in media such as speeches, newsletters, strategic plans, etc.).”
This study, therefore, asks: (i) How do company representatives discursively manage strategy-image tensions caused by the introduction of a novel, more sustainable product that challenges the legacy product? and (ii) What is the process by which the novel product is rendered a “fit” to the corporate image? The basis for answering these questions is a longitudinal investigation of a single case, namely, luxury sports car manufacturer Porsche and its decision to integrate electric cars.
Porsche is an extreme case for a corporation that has seen its legacy product challenged by external pressures to integrate sustainability, and where the established image associated with the legacy product—the sports car with an internal combustion engine and associated with brand attributes such as speeding, racing, and high fuel consumption—clashes with the sustainability features associated with the challenger product.
While other car manufacturers started experimenting with electric cars in the early 2000s, Porsche publicly questioned whether electric driving was a good fit for its brand for quite some time. In 2015, however, the company unveiled its first concept for a fully electric car. While some constituents welcomed the plans for an electric Porsche, others balked because they perceived electric driving as a misfit to what a Porsche represents.
The analysis of company-specific archival data over a timeframe of 16 years suggests that Porsche cut through this dilemma by making the challenger product “fit” its legacy, so that it was able to present electric mobility as a “perfect match” when introducing its first electric car (Porsche’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in Autogazette, 2019). This was accomplished, among others, by discursive efforts aimed at opening space for reinterpreting what the sports car of the future looks like, reframing the electric car as a desirable product consistent with historically valued brand attributes, and detaching the way the driving experience is delivered from the underlying product. Based on the case analysis, I suggest that the discursive process by which firms reconcile tensions between their established identity and projected image unfolds in three stages: (i) detaching the brand image from the legacy product, (ii) constructing a positive narrative around the new product, and (iii) endorsing the fit of the new product category to the corporation.
The analysis of this single case study supports the understanding of sustainability mainstreaming and incumbent change. Extant work on incumbent change and corporate responses to external pressures to integrate sustainability has mostly focused on defensive responses with which incumbents aim at protecting their core business, or their responses at a time when it is not yet clear whether strategic action to integrate more sustainable products will be taken (e.g., Pinkse et al., 2019). Instead, this study focuses on the period when strategic action challenging the legacy product is being implemented, and corporate representatives must confront the resulting tensions in the public. In addition, scholars have recently called for work that goes beyond the identification of single discursive practices to manage strategy-image tensions and studies their evolution over time (De Keyser & Langley, 2025). The process model offered in this study supports such a processual, more dynamic view, which is arguably very relevant for understanding incumbent change toward sustainability, which is a process that can unfold over decades (Schupfer & Soppe, 2025).
Theoretical Background
Sustainability Mainstreaming in Incumbent Firms
External pressures, including regulatory demands, societal expectations, and shifting mindsets, increasingly drive the mainstreaming of sustainability. While such pressures affect organizations broadly, they are especially consequential for incumbent firms, for whom the integration of more sustainable products and business models can create “strategic business tensions,” which refers to tensions that threaten the current core business (Pinkse et al., 2019). This is frequently the case in mature, carbon-intensive industries where external pressures push incumbents to move away from their current core business and reorient toward more sustainable products and business models (Schupfer & Soppe, 2025). Starting to integrate more sustainable products and business models leads to several structural, financial, organizational, and identity- and image-related challenges for incumbent firms. For instance, in the short term, the integration of such products may require large investments and undermine existing revenue streams because more sustainable alternatives are often initially confined to niche markets and there is uncertainty regarding their scalability and economic performance (Bohnsack et al., 2014; Roome & Louche, 2016). Organizational challenges may stem from cultural constraints, with ingrained logics, routines, and structures leading to conflicts with new, sustainability-oriented logics and to resistance to change among managers and employees (Kok et al., 2019; Lozano, 2024). Identity- and image-related challenges may arise when sustainability mainstreaming calls into question core assumptions about value creation and organizational purpose in incumbent firms, sometimes culminating in shifts in the organizational purpose itself (Schupfer & Soppe, 2025).
De Keyser and Langley (2025) define strategy-identity tensions as those that “threaten the fundamental coherence of an organization’s identity and purpose, creating high-stakes situations that go beyond routine decision-making” (De Keyser & Langley, 2025, p. 2). Such tensions may arise when changes in regulatory demands, political contexts, market participants, or cultural expectations stimulate strategic actions that do not accord with who the organization has historically claimed to be (De Keyser & Langley, 2025). Literature holds that in such situations, successful change also depends on a firm’s ability to articulate and justify new directions to its constituents (Fiss & Zajac, 2006; Sonenshein, 2010; Suchman, 1995; Vaara & Tienar, 2008). Herein, the challenge is to remain authentic—while convincing constituents of a future, projected image that clashes with the present corporate identity.
Inspired by De Keyser and Langley’s (2025) terminology of strategy-identity tensions, this study refers to strategy-image tensions as tensions between an established corporate identity and a future projected image.
Corporate Identity and Corporate Image as a Site of Tensions
Corporate identity describes “a set of intrinsic characteristics or ‘traits’ (e.g., strategy, culture, core competencies) that give the organization its specificity, stability and coherence” (Cornelissen & Elving, 2003, p. 115). Early work on corporate identity emphasized the external broadcasting of this essence, focusing primarily on logos, symbols, and visual design as the primary means of “identifying” an organization to external audiences (Lippincott & Margulies, 1957). Contemporary understandings have moved beyond such narrow definitions. Corporate identity is now widely conceptualized as encompassing corporate communication, design, culture, behavior, structure, industry membership, and strategy, to “reveal ‘what the organization is’, ‘what it stands for’, ‘what it does’, ‘how it does it’ and ‘where it is going’” (Melewar et al., 2005, p. 61, based on Bernstein, 1984; Melewar & Jenkins, 2002). In this broader sense, identity refers to how the organization understands and defines itself, drawing on its history, traditions, symbols, practices, and philosophy (Gioia & Thomas, 1996).
Corporate image, by contrast, refers to how external constituents perceive the organization (Brown et al., 2006). Whereas identity is rooted in members’ internal self-understanding, image emerges from the interpretations, expectations, and evaluations of audiences such as consumers, regulators, media, and the general public. As Hatch and Schultz (1997) emphasize, identity and image are closely interrelated: external perceptions often feed back into internal understandings, while organizations actively seek to project certain images that resonate with their identity claims. The active effort to project an image is often referred to as “branding,” construed as a strategic concern with how the organization is represented and perceived by constituents, especially customers. How strategically important the protection of a corporate image and brand can be is reflected in concepts such as “brand value” or “brand equity” (Mindrut et al., 2015).
In the literature on corporate identity and corporate image, a key concern relates to the management of continuity and change (Cloutier & Ravasi, 2020; Vaara et al., 2016). Generally, firms try to avoid tensions between what the organization is, what it stands for, and what it does, how it does it, and where it is going, both internally and externally, because misalignments risk a loss of legitimacy. For instance, when a company tries to implement changes that external constituents perceive as a misfit to the established identity or, in turn, when the company continues to see itself in terms of its legacy expertise and traditions, but external constituents increasingly expect it to embody different values or capabilities, the resulting identity–image gap can pose a legitimacy threat to the organization (Whetten & Mackey, 2002).
Managing continuity and change can be particularly difficult for firms with a strong brand and legacy, where stakeholders have set beliefs and established meaning systems of what the firm stands for (Ravasi & Phillips, 2011; Suddaby et al., 2023). Continuity, on the one hand, is important for signaling stability and preserving heritage and legacy. Change, on the other hand, is important to signal continuous relevance.
Against this background, scholars have suggested more fine-grained analyses of firms’ identity claims, how they evolve, and the roles the past, present, and future play in the process. For instance, Gioia and Thomas (1996) discuss the importance of a projected (or desired) future image in the process of strategic change. The authors define a desired future image as the idea the organization portrays of “who we want to be and how we want to be seen after the strategic change is accomplished” (Gioia & Thomas, 1996, p. 382). They conclude that “formulating a compelling future image that people can associate with and commit to eases the launching and eventual institutionalizing of strategic change” (Gioia & Thomas, 1996, p. 398). At the same time, scholars have emphasized that a future image is especially compelling when it articulates a vision grounded in a coherent path from the past (Foster et al., 2017; Maclean et al., 2018). For instance, work on rhetorical history (Suddaby et al., 2010, 2023; Suddaby & Foster, 2017) suggests that the past can be a strategic resource for legitimating change as actions in the present and potential actions in the future can be made to appear reasonable, probable, or less risky by embedding them in a narrative that embraces the past. Regarding the question of how continuity and change of identity- and image-related claims are managed, scholars such as Chreim (2005) suggest that firms try to establish confluence (simultaneous continuity and change) by “selective reporting of elements from the past, present and future, the juxtaposition of the ‘modern and attractive’ with the ‘outdated and undesirable’” (p. 567). What becomes apparent is that existing work suggests that corporate image and identity, as well as the tensions between them, are very carefully and often strategically managed by corporate representatives in their discourse.
Discursive Perspectives on Managing Strategy-Image Tensions
Research has long recognized the critical role of verbal and textual communication in constructing meaning about strategic change for internal and external constituents (Mintzberg, 1973). Discursive perspectives have highlighted the role of language, communicative practices, vocabularies, and rhetorical tactics in channeling attention during strategic change processes (Ocasio et al., 2018; Sonenshein, 2010; Vaara et al., 2016). Although the literature distinguishes between narratives, discourse, rhetoric, and related concepts, these nuanced differences are not too central to this study. Instead, discourse is understood broadly as written and verbal accounts.
In studying how corporate representatives try to manage identity- and image-related tensions, scholars have tended to focus on internal discourse. For instance, Ravasi and Phillips (2011) focus on leaders who have the task of (re)establishing congruence between new configurations of resources and activities during a strategic change process, and on how these new configurations are communicated to members of the organization. Less work has examined external discourse, although scholars acknowledge that legitimating new directions to the public and external constituents is a critical task for corporate representatives (Ravasi & Phillips, 2011).
Where sustainability mainstreaming generates tensions between a firm’s established identity and projected image, the discursive management of these tensions is likely to differ from the broader repertoire of responses to institutional pressures available to firms (Oliver, 1991). Generally, research has shown that firms often respond strategically to external pressures and institutional demands (Kumaraswamy et al., 2018; Linnenluecke et al., 2013). For instance, Fiss and Zajac (2006) highlight that firms may decouple their communication and strategic projections from the actual implementation of changes. Instead of decoupling, firms can selectively couple elements of conflicting demands to gain acceptance (Pache & Santos, 2021). However, at a stage when an issue has become widely salient, meaning that there is a lot of societal attention to the issue, defensive responses may not be available any longer. For instance, for the case of food processing firms responding to the widely salient social issue of obesity, Pinkse et al. (2019) argue that acquiescing or openly defying the issue are no longer viable options as the issue has created a strategic business tension, so that overly defensive responses would pose existential risks to the firm. Instead, they highlight that in such stages, firms tend to employ “accepting-defensive” responses, meaning they oscillate between emphasizing continuity of the existing core business and more constructive approaches that acknowledge the need for change. The authors suggest that once firms decide to take strategic action on the issue and implement substantive changes, they may gravitate even more toward accepting responses, as they need to “work through the tension” (p. 337). Strategy-image tensions fall into this category because they occur during strategy implementation.
A small but growing body of research has begun to examine how corporate representatives discursively navigate identity- and image-related tensions: For instance, Cloutier and Ravasi (2020) suggest that the separation of means and ends—that is, the type of claims used to define “why we do what we do” (ends) as opposed to “how we do what we do” (means)—can be a means to accomplish change while preserving an established identity. In their study of a large cooperative financial services organization, De Keyser and Langley (2025) found that leaders discursively navigate situations when strategic actions appear inconsistent with historically valued identity attributes by discursive tactics such as pacing (regulating the salience of tensions), sensegiving (shaping the interpretation of strategic actions), and revising (reworking the grounds for authenticity). They suggest that firms and their representatives deal with strategy-identity tensions by trying to (re)construct the tension and by framing their strategic actions. Beyond identifying individual practices, however, there is a need to understand their interplay and evolution over time, that is, the process by which firms can “negotiate collective meaning and sustain organizational continuity during pivotal transitions” (De Keyser and Langley, 2025, p. 2).
Electric Mobility as a Strategy-Image Tension for Car Manufacturers
From the automotive industry’s perspective, and specifically car manufacturers’, the integration of electric cars exemplifies a tension that is simultaneously strategic and image-related. From a strategic perspective, the production of electric cars affects car manufacturers’ core business (Bohnsack et al., 2014, 2020). The integration of electric cars entails changes in product architecture, supply chains, manufacturing processes, and after-sales services, all of which have profound impacts on firms’ sources of profitability. As such, the introduction of electric cars can be seen as challenging established ways of operating in the industry.
While the sustainability credentials of electric cars are contested—as their net environmental benefits depend on factors such as electricity sources, battery production, and because they do not fundamentally alter consumption logics (e.g., Haghani et al., 2024; Keil & Steinberger, 2023)—in the public, electric mobility has been framed, by regulators, civil society actors, and by car manufacturers themselves, as the “green” alternative to fossil-fuel based transport and as sustainable product innovation. Sustainable product innovation is defined as products that “strive to protect or enhance the natural environment by conserving energy and/or resources and reducing or eliminating use of toxic agents, pollution, and waste” (Ottman et al., 2006, p. 24). More broadly, sustainable innovation does not only refer to single products but also product categories, processes, and business models (e.g., Chen, 2008; Dangelico & Pujari, 2010).
The public framing of electric cars as the innovative answer to the environmental challenges posed by traditional fossil-fuel-based transport created a direct juxtaposition between the internal combustion engine as the “brown” product and the electric engine as the “green” alternative. For many car manufacturers, the mainstreaming of electric cars therefore represented more than a simple extension of their product portfolios. It raised fundamental questions about the future of their operations: Internal combustion engines have been the technological foundation for the automotive industry and a central element of its identity for decades, encapsulating engineering expertise, industrial culture, and even national pride. Internally, reallocating resources and competencies from combustion to electric engines signaled a departure from long-standing tradition and may have created uncertainty among managers and workers. Externally, customers, regulators, and other stakeholders may have interpreted the introduction of electric cars not just as first experiments but as a moment that challenges what it means to be a car manufacturer. Especially for those car manufacturers whose legacy and heritage were deeply anchored in combustion technology and the cultural meanings attached to performance, engine sound, and the driving experience, the present identity seemed difficult to preserve in light of more resourceful, quieter, and automated driving. As most car manufacturers have nowadays introduced electric cars, the question arises how they managed this tension.
Method
A single longitudinal case study seemed suitable because corporate identity and corporate image are unique to each organization (Ozcan et al., 2017). Furthermore, it seemed suitable to analyze a “revelatory” or “extreme” case to ensure a high chance of observing the phenomenon of interest (Ozcan et al., 2017; Yin, 2014).
Research Setting
Luxury sports car manufacturer Porsche was considered an ideal case because it has seen its legacy product challenged by pressures to integrate more sustainable and alternative forms of driving. Dating back to 1931, the company stands for a legacy product heavily anchored in engineering expertise and tradition. Mobility is not the only—and potentially not even the primary—function of a Porsche; owning a Porsche is seen as representing a lifestyle involving luxury, racing, and speeding among many car lovers across the globe.
When electric cars started to proliferate, the car manufacturer argued for a long time—longer than other car manufacturers—that electric mobility did not fit its brand. Instead, Porsche gradually introduced cars with a hybrid engine. With increasing regulatory pressures (e.g., EU directive on emission standards), increasing societal pressure (e.g., Greenpeace protesting at Porsche’s main plant and calling them “climate pigs”), and market acceptance of electric mobility (e.g., positive perception of the Tesla Roadster), this changed. In 2019, Porsche launched its first fully electric car (the Taycan). This was a move that many journalists and industry experts classified as a “culture shock” (Autogazette, 2019). When announcing the decision to build an all-electric Porsche in 2015, the company itself commented this with “signal[ing] the start of a new chapter in the history of the brand” (Porsche, 2016a, p. 119) and that electric driving is a “perfect fit” for its brand. For all these reasons, Porsche seems a suitable case to investigate the discursive process of reconciling strategy-image tensions and making sustainability fit legacy.
Data Collection
The temporal scope of the collected data is 16 years (2005–2020), which is sufficient to capture also the period leading up to the decision to integrate electric cars. In 2005, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force, introducing emissions requirements for car manufacturers and increasing attention to sustainability. 2020 was the other natural delineator, as it was the year in which Porsche announced a €15 billion investment in electric mobility, signaling it would move beyond a single electric car and planned to electrify a larger share of its future fleet. While the transition toward electric cars is still ongoing today (and has fallen short of its intended targets 1 ), the 16-year period studied seemed sufficient to capture how strategy-image tensions around the introduction of the first electric cars were dealt with.
Following familiarization with the case timeline and the evolution of electric mobility in Europe, in Germany (where Porsche is based), and within the luxury sports car sector, data collection focused on communication and speech acts coming directly from Porsche to see how corporate representatives spoke about the introduction of electric cars and the electric engine vis-à-vis the combustion engine. While external communication tends to put the focal organization in a favorable light and only allows to capture formalized narratives (De Keyser & Langley, 2025), Gurses and Ozcan (2015) argue that it is precisely the fact that public statements are carefully prepared for external audiences that makes them a rich source for examining corporate efforts to frame and give sense to strategic decisions. Furthermore, because external communication is publicly scrutinized, it is hard for executives not to address any substantial strategic actions (Kaplan, 2008). While primary data, such as interviews with managers, could have helped to contextualize the reasons behind decisions, the specific interest of this study was the external broadcasting of those decisions. Accordingly, three types of data were collected:
Annual and Sustainability Reports
Annual and sustainability reports were valuable sources in this study because they aim to communicate the corporation’s status quo and future plans to external constituents. These reports included shareholder letters and contained interviews with high-level executives and managers that offered detailed descriptions of the corporate strategy, strategic actions, and their context.
Press Releases
Porsche’s media portal contained a database of press releases and other company-specific communications, allowing filtering by topic, format, and date. The search for electric mobility returned 139 documents. These results were further filtered to select those relevant to the study. Therefore, the actual number of documents used from this data source was 80. Next to the media portal, the corporate website, and two Environmental Statements published by Porsche during the study period were used to complement the data.
Media Interviews with Senior Executives
Publicly available interviews with senior executives were collected and analyzed as secondary data. Specifically, an online research database for news sources (Nexis Uni) was searched for newspapers and magazines that published interviews with the company’s senior executives. Searching this database for “electric mobility,” names of CEOs in the respective timeframe, and the term “interview,” led to 257 results. Excluding duplicates resulted in the inclusion of 62 senior executive interviews conducted from 2005 to 2020. Table 1 summarizes the data sources used in the study.
Data Material.
N/A = not applicable; Nexis Uni = An online research database for news sources.
Results were filtered considering the topic under investigation (electric mobility). bSearch within initial results (including): electric mobility OR electric AND Wiedeking OR Macht OR Müller OR Blume AND Interview. cResults were filtered to include only direct communication from the organization and its leadership members.
Data Analysis
The data analysis evolved in iterative steps. The first step was to reconstruct the case chronology to establish the context for dealing with strategy-image tensions. The second step was to extract statements related to identity and image and classify them into themes of “continuity” and “change.” The third step was bringing the results together with the temporal brackets established in step 1, whereas temporal bracketing is a common analysis strategy for process data in which the data is placed into successive adjacent periods and to enable “the explicit examination of how actions of one period lead to change in the context what will affect action in subsequent periods” (Langley, 1999, p. 703).
Step 1: Reconstructing Case Chronology
All 170 documents were read and searched for critical events related to internal and external factors (e.g., changes to regulations, launches of new strategies, new leadership/management) to obtain a comprehensive view of the case context, both internal and external to the firm. This was triangulated with the author’s own knowledge of the case history and information on the evolution of electric mobility in the automotive industry, to ensure no important events were missing. Similar to Bohnsack et al. (2020), events were then further sorted as internal events (e.g., CEO change), low-emission vehicle (LEV) engagement events (e.g., launch of a LEV car), contingent events (dependent on other external events), and regulatory events (e.g., new emission standards) to get a comprehensive overview of the case timeline. Figure 1 depicts the main events that occurred during the study period.
Case timeline and temporal brackets.
Step 2: Coding for Themes of Change and Continuity
Next, documents were coded to extract statements that broadly related to electric mobility in relation to the Porsche brand, image, and identity. First, statements were coded thematically. For instance, a statement referring to Porsche’s vision for research and development or its corporate culture received the code “R&D” or “corporate culture,” respectively. Next, a round of coding was conducted by two coders independently to identify indications of change or continuity within the thematic categories. Where differences occurred, they were discussed, and arguments were exchanged until agreement on a classification was reached. These two categories were then clustered and cross-compared (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), which led to the identification of specific themes of continuity and change. It became apparent that continuity at Porsche was mostly linked to themes such as a continued focus on “emotional sportiness” as a brand attribute, and to keeping the production location, that is, not building a new factory for electric cars but integrating them into the legacy headquarters. Change at Porsche was mostly linked to the development of new products (electric cars, alternative drivetrains), a stronger emphasis on sustainability, and retraining the workforce.
Step 3: Process Theorizing
The final stage of the analysis involved process theorizing (Langley, 1999; Langley et al., 2013). This meant reordering themes of continuity and change chronologically to see whether there were any recognizable stages or sequences in which they occurred, cross-comparing them, and examining how they related to one another over time. Hereby, it is important to mention that the chronological ordering of statements alone did not automatically lead to the emergence of clear-cut stages; these rather became apparent when focusing on how statements were connected—for instance, by examining how claims about the corporate identity, products, and sustainability were related to one another, and how these relationships shifted over time. Through iterative cycles of moving back and forth between the data, patterns began to emerge. Trying to label the emerging discursive practices yielded three concepts or stages (see Table 2), which seemed to have allowed Porsche to reconcile strategy-image tensions and make electric cars fit its legacy.
Key Concepts.
First, detaching the image from the contested product, meaning arguing for the transcendence of the brand beyond cars with an internal combustion engine. Second, around the introduction of the first electric car, constructing a positive narrative around the new product. Third, endorsing the fit of the new product category to the corporation by emphasizing the benefits of broader integration. While in the following, these stages are presented as analytically distinct, in reality, they are interconnected.
Findings
At the core of the findings is the idea that the reconciliation of strategy-image tensions is a staged process of “fitting in by talking through” (see Figure 2).
Making sustainability fit legacy: A staged discursive process.
In the first stage, to prepare the introduction of the challenger product, the analysis of the Porsche case suggests that discursive efforts focus on detaching the brand image from the contested product. This includes arguing for brand transcendence and opening new interpretive space with audiences that allows for the reconciliation of the features associated with the challenger product with historically valued brand attributes. In the next stage, when introducing the first versions of the challenger product, this emphasis is even greater—discursive efforts focus on constructing a positive narrative around the new product and authenticating its fit with the brand image. Finally, “fitting in by talking through” includes endorsing the new product category’s fit to the entire corporation. This involves creating a positive narrative around the new product category, including explanations of why it will secure future success and survival, and how the change can be managed. In addition, this final step involves discursive efforts to call out a new era in corporate history.
In the following case analysis, these three stages are grounded in the data. Table 3 offers further supporting material for each stage and practice. The final section then discusses the process of “fitting in by talking through” and links back to the broader discussion of incumbent change and sustainability mainstreaming.
Empirical Grounding of Key Concepts in the Case.
A Case of Fitting in by Talking Through
Overall, the case chronology suggests that Porsche went from being highly skeptical of engine electrification to embracing it and positioning itself as a driver of sustainable mobility. When asked in 2018 whether Porsche’s identity can change, the answer of CEO Oliver Blume was: “Of course. In fact, you have to let your identity continue to evolve. We are experiencing that at the moment. We are currently in the middle of a massive technological upheaval” (Porsche, 2018b, p. 6).
Stage 1: Detaching the Brand Image From the Legacy Product
In the first stage, efforts seemed directed at paving the way for the subsequent introduction of the novel product by trying to detach the image from the legacy product. This discursive pattern involved arguing for brand transcendence, that is, stressing that the brand is shaped by higher-order values (e.g., sportiness, luxury) rather than a distinct feature of its legacy product (the car with the combustion engine). In addition, during this stage, there were efforts to open new interpretive space, meaning efforts to stir up the expectation that alternative forms of driving might not be at odds with Porsche’s established identity.
Arguing for Brand Transcendence
Before announcing plans to develop an electric model, Porsche had already worked on distancing itself from practices considered unsustainable. For instance, in 2007, when Greenpeace protested at their sites, the CEO at the time proclaimed: “We are not the dirty dogs of the industry” (Wendelin Wiedeking, in Boyes, 2007, p. 9). Instead, Porsche emphasized what it does to address environmental concerns and that it is supportive of sustainability.
Simultaneously, discursive efforts went into refining and clarifying that the core of the brand is what Porsche calls “emotional sportiness” and that their business is luxury sports cars as a product category, not necessarily cars with a distinct engine type.
We will be the producer of very sporty luxury cars. That’s it. Our core business is and will be sports cars in the future. (Wendelin Wiedeking (CEO), in Automotive News; 2007, p. 2)
This suggests Porsche started to slowly position the product as a means-to-an-end (Cloutier & Ravasi, 2020), arguing for “What we offer will in part be different. But whatever is labeled Porsche must always be Porsche inside” (Porsche, 2016c, p. 4).
Opening Interpretive Space
Another discursive practice supporting the detachment of the image from the legacy product was the opening of interpretive space for new products. This involved, above all, explaining that sustainability and driving fun must not be at odds and should not be seen as mutually exclusive. Porsche started to gradually open space for audiences to imagine that a Porsche car can also be sustainable, and that the future sports car may look different than what markets are currently used to. Around the announcement of their plans to develop an all-electric model, this was also related directly to electric driving: Electric drive systems offer, first of all, the possibility of CO2-neutral and zero-emission mobility. Another bit of good news: electric motors also offer an outstanding driving experience. Being CO2-neutral and fun to drive are not mutually exclusive. (Dirk Lappe, Technical Director at Porsche Engineering in Porsche, 2016b, p. 2)
What helped these arguments was that Porsche (2014) had re-entered Formula 1 in 2013, returning to the racetrack with a company-owned racing team competing in the 2014 World Endurance Championships, including the legendary Le Mans track. The experience would “serve as [Porsche’s] own laboratory and test bench for hybrid-vehicle developments” (Porsche, 2014, p. 5) and later be positioned as critical for developing an all-electric model. It certainly also helped to underpin arguments that speeding and racing can be reconciled with alternative drives, thereby opening interpretive space for what the sports car of the future might look like: [i]n terms of hybrid management, the Le Mans prototypes advanced into regions previously considered unattainable [. . .], the 919 Hybrid [was] a rolling test laboratory [which] paved the way for the voltage level of future hybrid and electric powertrain systems. (Porsche, 2019d, p. 18)
Stage 2: Constructing a Positive Narrative Around the New Product
In a second stage, the construction of a positive narrative around the new product seemed largely driven by discursive efforts to authenticate its fit with the brand image.
Authenticating Fit With the Brand Image
Around the introduction of the first all-electric car (the Taycan) in 2019, discursive efforts aimed at emphasizing that electric cars are the “perfect fit” to Porsche not just because they share a high-efficiency approach, but especially because of their sporty character” (Oliver Blume, Porsche CEO, in Porsche, 2019g, p. 1). The sustainability benefits of electric cars were mentioned but most important seemed the emphasis on the fit to the brand and that “[customers will] find everything they expect from our brand in a purely electric Porsche like the Taycan: extremely sporty driving dynamics, outstanding performance figures, and not least of all, a high degree of emotional appeal” (Albrecht Reimold, Member of the Executive Board for Production and Logistics, in Porsche, 2019e, p. 3). Efforts to convince constituents that electric driving does not change the core of Porsche might have been best reflected in the slogan accompanying the launch of the Taycan, which was “Soul, electrified”—stressing that the fully electric Porsche remains true to the firm’s soul.
Stage 3: Endorsing the Fit of the New Product Category
After the first electric car had been launched, discursive efforts aimed at constructing a positive narrative around the new product category and explaining why making electric cars a bigger part of the product portfolio and expanding the electric fleet were necessary. In line with this, the magnitude and scale of the change to come were emphasized, labeled here as efforts to call out a new era in corporate history.
Calling Out a New Era in Corporate History
A striking feature of Porsche’s (2020) communication was the emphasis on the Taycan signaling “the dawning of a new era” (p. 8) and on electric mobility as constituting an unparalleled transformation for the firm. Porsche did not downplay the Taycan as a single model or a first experiment, nor did it stress that the majority of its portfolio continued to be cars with combustion engines. Instead, it positioned the launch of the Taycan as the marker of a new era in corporate history and sent signals that more is to come (Porsche, 2019f). In this context, it was also emphasized that there was no alternative to building the new electric cars in Zuffenhausen, the historic location of their headquarters. Porsche decided to refurbish an existing factory rather than build a new one to produce the Taycan.
This is where the heart of Porsche beats. Everything has developed from here; this is where the future has a tradition. Zuffenhausen is the home of the 911, the icon of the brand. What could be a better site for a car that marks the beginning of a new Porsche era? (Oliver Blume, CEO, in Porsche, 2016c, p. 2)
To be able to produce the Taycan at Porsche’s (2017) main plant, the site was restructured. This was considered an “open-heart surgery” by the automaker (Porsche, 2019e) as the new production facility had to be integrated while maintaining existing operations at full production capacity. Restructuring included the expansion of the body shop, the construction of a new paint shop, an assembly hall, and an engine assembly hall, and the installation of new conveyor technology throughout the site (Porsche, 2017). Porsche emphasized that, also in terms of the production process, a new era had begun: Production 4.0: smart, lean, and green. Instead of traditional conveyor belts to transport components and vehicles from station to station, the new assembly line featured automatically guided vehicles and aimed to achieve carbon-neutral production and become a Zero Impact Factory (Porsche, 2019c).
While certainly also a concession to its workforce, producing the Taycan in Zuffenhausen was, in terms of corporate identity and image, a signal of continuity amid broader changes, namely that its first electric car would be built at the site where an important part of Porsche’s history and legacy was located: Porsche has deliberately decided to produce this new icon at its headquarters in Zuffenhausen—heart and home of the brand. (Albrecht Reimold, Member of the Executive Board for Production and Logistics in Porsche, 2019a, p. 1)
Constructing a Positive Narrative Around the New Product Category
Porsche did not deny but rather stressed the significant change effort required to start serial production of electric cars. It positioned the shift to electric driving as an epochal change, yet also as something positive that can secure the firm’s future. Simultaneously, at this stage, a lot of discursive effort went into rendering transformation plans realistic and explaining how the change would be accomplished. This included training for the workforce to produce electric cars and to “go back to the historical roots of the company, and [discover] how Porsche has come to enter the field of electromobility” (Porsche, 2020, p. 106).
[T]he ongoing development of Porsche Production 4.0 and an unparalleled knowledge campaign rolled out throughout the entire company: in firmly committing to electric mobility, the sports car manufacturer is undergoing a process of major change and once again reaffirming its ability to safeguard its future. (Porsche, 2018a, p. 1)
Porsche further stressed that it did not plan lay-offs as part of transforming but positioned electric cars as “one of the biggest creators of jobs in the history of Porsche” (Andreas Haffner, Porsche Member of the Executive Board for Human Resources and Social Affairs, in Porsche, 2018a, p. 4). In fact, all employees under collective agreements, managers and executives agreed to give up on salary increases for a determined period to support Porsche’s ambitions to integrate electric cars and secure the production site in Zuffenhausen. This was acknowledged as an unusual concession from the employees’ representatives and unprecedented within the automotive industry in general (Albrecht Reimold, Porsche Member of the Executive Board for Production and Logistics, in Porsche, 2019e).
The analysis of the Porsche case suggests that the reconciliation of strategy-image tensions is a gradual and staged process. The introduction of electric cars confronted Porsche with strategy-image tensions, which the firm addressed carefully in its public discourse. Rather than arguing for changes to the established identity, discursive efforts focused on rendering electric cars a “fit”; corporate representatives consistently portrayed electric cars as non-threatening and aligned with historically valued brand attributes such as performance, speed, and driving fun. Although audience-level processes were not the focus of this study, indicators such as the positive reception of the Taycan suggest that Porsche was rather successful in reconciling strategy-image tensions. At the same time, the shift toward electric mobility is ongoing and much more complex than the analysis of 16 years of public discourse can capture. By the time of writing this study, for instance, Porsche has dialed back on its target to have 80% of its cars fully electric by 2030, quoting a lack of demand and the general shift to electrification progressing more slowly than projected (Johnson, 2024; Phoon, 2024). The case analysis, therefore, also serves as a reminder that the discursive reconciliation of strategic tensions is not necessarily indicative of wider, substantive change.
Discussion
Increasing pressures to mainstream sustainability prompt firms to take strategic actions that have important implications for how they are perceived. The case analysis of luxury sports car manufacturer Porsche provides empirically grounded insights into the tensions that can emerge in this process. In particular, the longitudinal analysis of a single case contributes to a deeper understanding of strategy-image tensions and their discursive management over time.
To the literature, this study makes the following contributions: First, it focuses on strategy-image tensions as a particular type of tension that has received little attention in the context of mainstreaming sustainability in incumbent firms (Schupfer & Soppe, 2025). The case analysis of Porsche, however, suggests that such tensions are key concerns for incumbents when integrating more sustainable products and that they address them carefully and consciously in their public discourse. As such, strategy-image tensions might be an additional important factor in understanding the challenges incumbent firms grapple with when facing pressures to integrate sustainability. Regarding how such tensions are managed, the case analysis and the resulting process model contribute to scholarly knowledge about the repertoire of accepting (rather than defensive) response strategies for managing strategic tensions (e.g., De Keyser & Langley, 2025; Pinkse et al., 2019). Corporate representatives of Porsche often explicitly acknowledged strategy-image tensions. In doing so, however, they also gradually reconstructed these tensions. The analysis suggests that this is a staged process: Arguing for the immediate integration of the more sustainable alternative would lead to consistency issues between the established identity and projected image. Thus, in the first step, preparatory efforts focus on detaching the image from the legacy product and creating space for integrating the novel product. In parallel, there are efforts to reframe the novel product as one that matches, or can prospectively match, the established corporate identity. Considering strategy-image tensions may thus inform our understanding of the pace at which incumbents change.
Next, the pattern of “fitting in” offers a valuable contribution to the literature on sustainability mainstreaming and warrants critical discussion. The results of the case analysis suggest how, gradually, corporate representatives worked to portray the new product as non-threatening and consistent with the established identity. Interestingly, to do so, framing efforts targeted both the firm and the product category; Porsche worked on detaching its image from the combustion engine, but it also worked on rebranding the electric car as a desirable product. On the one hand, “fitting in” may therefore help to mainstream sustainability. On the other hand, the case of Porsche suggests that this discursive pattern makes sustainability appear as an add-on—an attribute that enhances, rather than changes—the brand. This raises important questions about what is gained and what may be foreclosed when sustainability is mainstreamed primarily by making it compatible with existing logics.
In the following, I further discuss the implications of the findings, their limitations, and future research directions.
Implications for Understanding Incumbent Change and Strategy-Image Tensions
The case analysis suggests that reconciling strategy-image tensions is an important enabling process for corporate contributions to sustainability. So far, only a few studies have applied an image- or identity-based lens to examine how incumbents begin implementing more sustainable alternatives that threaten to replace their core business (Schupfer & Soppe, 2025), especially when their image constitutes a key asset. For these firms, mainstreaming sustainability entails more than balancing continuity and change. While corporate heritage brands are often portrayed as particularly adept at embracing both legacy and adaptation and at presenting change as continuous with the past (Cooper et al., 2021), I argue that introducing a product that may ultimately replace the legacy product presents a distinct challenge from managing diversification and broader meanings about continuity and change. Even when the integration of the novel product unfolds over decades, the looming threat of replacement is known to constituents and affects the perception of change and its implementation. This implies we need to better understand how corporations manage the complexities of replacing legacy products with more sustainable alternatives.
A promising avenue for understanding how incumbents manage strategy-image tensions seems to lie in the field of rhetorical history as institutional work (Suddaby et al., 2023). Some of the issues emerging from the findings relate specifically to the mobilization of the past, the present, and the future in corporate discourse. When strategic actions call into question historically valued products and attributes, reconciling continuity and change can require reconfiguring the relationship among past, present, and future by realigning legacy and innovation rather than merely balancing heritage and adaptation (Suddaby et al., 2023). As Kaplan and Orlikowski (2013) argue, successful change also depends on managers’ capabilities for “temporal work” through which they weave interpretations of the past, present, and future into a coherent and credible narrative of strategic choice and action. The case analysis underscores that reconciling strategy-image tensions requires substantial temporal work, especially during a phase when the core business must continue to operate alongside the introduction of more sustainable alternatives.
Furthermore, the findings may help us to understand how incumbents deal with the notion of revolutionary versus evolutionary change, and how these themes are mobilized in their discourse and in the (re)construction of strategy-image tensions. The case analysis indicates that Porsche, on the one hand, worked to present the integration of electric cars as a form of non-threatening, continuous change. On the other hand, it also framed the introduction of electric cars as the start of a “new era” and a change of unprecedented size for the firm. This fits work suggesting that corporations may portray change as revolutionary and exaggerate it to some extent, as this helps construct a crisis that convinces constituents of the urgency of change (Ybema, 2014). The interplay of, on the one hand, downplaying and, on the other hand, inflating change also raises intriguing questions regarding the role of legacy in this relation. This is something that Sergeeva and Kraatz (2025) recently investigated in the case of firms facing existential crises and found that relating to legacy can help, as they term it, “mastering the art of crisis.” Incumbents might use appeals to evolutionary and revolutionary change as discursive resources to construct urgency, while working toward a projected image and sustaining the coherence of their established identity over time.
Implications for Understanding Sustainability Mainstreaming
The very notion of “fit” speaks to the ways in which organizations attempt to normalize sustainability and make it “business as usual” (Wright & Nyberg, 2017). In relation to the discussion about mainstreaming sustainability, there are two aspects to consider. On the one hand, “fitting in by talking through” may help incumbents to realize strategic actions that might otherwise meet resistance. From this perspective, the reconciliation of strategy-image tensions can be seen as an important enabling factor for bringing more sustainable products to the mass market (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010). Moreover, corporate attempts to reconcile strategy-image tensions may also have broader, system-level effects: they signal to markets and consumers that more sustainable alternatives to current products are not incompatible with prevailing tastes, thereby supporting their acceptance. On the other hand, authentication and rendering something “fit” can also be a form of institutional maintenance work (Colombero & Boxenbaum, 2019). Embedding sustainability into conventional logics raises questions about whether the changes incumbents pursue are genuinely transformative or merely rhetorical. Also in the automotive industry, the question arises whether the introduction of electric cars represents a genuinely more sustainable way of doing business (Busch et al., 2024; Waddock, 2020). For instance, researchers have questioned the socio-ecological limits of the industry transition, given that the dominant business model of selling ever more and ever larger cars for individual mobility has not been fundamentally disrupted (Keil & Steinberger, 2023). In addition, framing sustainability primarily in terms of its marketability can produce paradoxical effects (Hahn & Pinkse, 2022). For instance, Porsche successfully integrated electric cars by making sustainability fit existing brand attributes such as speed, performance, and driving fun. Sustainability, in this framing, appears as an add-on rather than a core transformation—an attribute that enhances, rather than displaces, the established image. From this perspective, “fitting in” might not only be a discursive process that enables the continued support of existing customers, but a pattern that helps to open up new markets. It supports marketability to eco-conscious target groups and the sale of ever more cars by making the purchase of a very luxurious sports car compatible with care for the environment.
Limitations and Future Research
First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge that this study primarily analyzes the narratives constructed by a single firm, which may not directly reflect substantive changes in its operations nor wider changes in the industry. As such, the findings speak more to the discursive dimension of corporate sustainability than to substantive organizational change. Next, because theorizing of the process model is based on a single case study, it is important to recognize the boundary conditions of this case. Overall, it seems plausible that the general dynamic of “fitting in by talking through” observed in the Porsche case might also be observable in other settings where incumbent firms face strategy-image tensions. However, it is important to highlight that Porsche is a small luxury brand whose corporate image is heavily tied to a legacy product. For future research, it would be interesting to examine how other firms, including non-luxury brands, manage strategy-image tensions. It would further be interesting to examine, for instance, how strategy-image tensions are addressed in sectors where image, legacy, and heritage are more closely tied to craft or workers’ identity (e.g., mining; bio-based industries). Furthermore, the pattern of attempting to reconcile strategy-image tensions observed for the case of Porsche could be contrasted and cross-compared with firms that took different organizational design decisions, such as car manufacturers who decided to establish separate sub-brands for their electric fleets (e.g., BMW and the i-series, Mercedes and the EQ series, etc.). Such studies could provide further insights into the relationship between organizational design choices and the salience of strategy-image tensions. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the data collected does not allow us to say anything about audience-level processes. The fact that Porsche did not receive major backlash and their first electric car was, overall, received positively, suggests that the company managed to reconcile strategy-image tensions. However, it is important to flag that no audience-level data were collected to establish concrete constituent reactions. Future research examining the interaction between corporate discourse and audience-level reactions would be highly valuable, not least because identity- and image-related tensions are socially constructed (De Keyser & Langley, 2025). Examining such dynamics could provide a more interactionist and relational perspective on the process and how corporations (re)construct tensions in their relations with audiences. For instance, scholars have investigated how organizations move from stigma to legitimacy (Hampel & Tracey, 2017) using data capturing both communication from the firm and communication from the firm’s constituents.
Conclusion
The analysis of Porsche’s introduction of electric cars provides insight into the mechanisms through which strategy-image tensions are managed when more sustainable alternatives challenge legacy products. The findings suggest a processual understanding of how strategic actions and a future projected image are rendered compatible with the existing corporate identity. More specifically, the findings suggest that the discursive process of “fitting in” a more sustainable product that challenges the legacy product proceeds in three stages: First, detaching the brand image from the legacy product. Second, constructing a positive narrative around the new product, framing it as both desirable and consistent with the brand. Third, endorsing the fit of the new product category with the corporation, emphasizing its importance for securing the corporation’s future.
Public discourse emerges as a central means by which corporate representatives actively manage meaning and decouple the image from the legacy product, while selectively rearticulating continuity and change. When reconciling strategy-image tensions, corporations can move forward with integrating more sustainable product alternatives. However, the findings also point to a more ambivalent dynamic, in which sustainability is rendered compatible and carefully aligned to, rather than disruptive of, existing logics and identity claims.
These insights hold broader implications beyond the single case studied. Increasing pressure to mainstream sustainability is prompting firms in many industries to take strategic actions that have important implications for how they are perceived. While actions to integrate sustainability are frequently framed as unequivocally positive, this study highlights the challenges that arise when the projected image clashes with the existing corporate identity. The need to reconcile strategy-image tensions may be a critical yet underexplored factor in understanding corporate sustainability integration, especially in incumbent firms. Given the growing number of industries under pressure to transform or even replace their legacy products and business models, it seems central for our understanding of sustainability mainstreaming to examine how these firms manage this process and the strategic tensions that accompany it.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges Marcelo Brull for his contributions and for his passionate engagement with the case.
Correction (June 2026):
This article has been updated to remove the in-text citation ‘Suddaby et al., 2020’.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.