Introduction

The German telecommunications sector is characterized by a highly concentrated market structure, where a few dominant players exert considerable influence over industry trends. Among these, Vodafone and T-Mobile stand out as the primary competitors, forming a classic example of a duopolistic market. Their rivalry spans traditional areas such as pricing strategies, service offerings, and technological innovation. However, in recent years, this competition has increasingly extended into non-price dimensions—most notably, sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In today’s socially conscious marketplace, CSR initiatives have become vital tools for firms to differentiate themselves, build brand loyalty, and foster long-term customer relationships. Consumers are progressively factoring environmental responsibility, ethical governance, and community engagement into their purchasing decisions. Consequently, Vodafone and T-Mobile are not merely vying for market share through pricing or service coverage, but also through their public commitments to sustainability goals and socially responsible practices. This research aims to examine the strategic interplay between Vodafone and T-Mobile in Germany through the lens of game theory, focusing particularly on their CSR and sustainability efforts. By conceptualizing their rivalry as a repeated strategic game, this paper explores how their decisions influence not only each other but also consumer perception and societal outcomes. The central argument of this study is that the sustainability and CSR-related behaviors of these firms can be effectively understood as part of an ongoing game where both players seek to maximize long-term gains while minimizing reputational risks. High levels of CSR investment can generate significant long-term advantages, such as enhanced brand equity, customer loyalty, and alignment with regulatory expectations. Conversely, minimal or absent CSR engagement may lead to reputational harm, consumer backlash, and diminished competitiveness. Through repeated interactions and strategic decision-making, Vodafone and T-Mobile must continuously evaluate whether to adopt cooperative stances—where both firms invest meaningfully in CSR—or pursue more aggressive, self-serving approaches that could undermine collective credibility. By applying a game-theoretical framework, particularly that of repeated games, this paper seeks to analyze whether cooperative equilibrium strategies in CSR lead to superior outcomes for both firms and broader societal well-being, or if short-term competitive tactics dominate the strategic landscape. The analysis will contribute to a deeper understanding of how market dynamics and ethical considerations intersect in oligopolistic industries, offering insights that extend beyond the telecommunications sector.

 

Main Models

Oligopoly and Strategic Interdependence

An oligopoly is a market structure characterized by the dominance of a small number of large firms, each holding a significant share of the market. This creates a high level of interdependence among the firms, where each company’s strategic decisions—such as pricing, output, marketing, and investment—are closely influenced by the anticipated reactions of its competitors. As noted by Gregova (2009), oligopolistic firms do not operate in isolation but interact in a complex competitive environment where mutual awareness and strategic anticipation shape outcomes.

In some oligopolistic markets, firms may lean toward cooperative behavior, such as tacit agreements or mutual restraint in competition, to sustain profitability. In contrast, non-cooperative behavior, where firms aggressively undercut each other, can lead to lower overall profits (Dragašević, Rakočević, & Glišević, 2011). The specific path taken often depends on market incentives, long-term strategic goals, and repeated interactions among players.

The German telecommunications market exemplifies this structure, with Vodafone and Deutsche Telekom (operating as T-Mobile) forming a duopoly that shapes the industry landscape. These firms compete not only on core services and pricing models but also increasingly in the realm of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainability initiatives. This evolving dimension of competition reflects broader societal shifts in consumer expectations.

Empirical studies support the growing importance of CSR in consumer decision-making. For example, Erdem and Keane (1996) argue that consumer choices are influenced not just by price or product quality, but by the perceived social and ethical conduct of firms. More recent research by Lee et al. (2015) reinforces this notion, suggesting that sustainability and CSR efforts have become key differentiators in industries like telecommunications. As such, when Vodafone invests in renewable energy or green infrastructure, it exerts pressure on T-Mobile to respond in kind, not solely for ethical reasons, but to preserve its market position and consumer trust.

This interdependence results in strategic decision-making that is dynamic and often reactive, diverging significantly from behavior observed in perfectly competitive or monopolistic markets. The firms’ mutual awareness shapes a landscape where actions are not isolated but interconnected.

Game Theory and Strategic Decision-Making

Game theory offers a powerful analytical framework for understanding the strategic interactions that define oligopolistic competition. At its core, game theory examines how rational decision-makers, referred to as “players,” choose strategies in anticipation of how others will act. As Zhu and Li (2013) observe, game theory provides insights into the logic behind tactical decision-making, identifying how each participant’s outcomes depend not only on their own choices but also on those of their rivals.

This approach is particularly useful in analyzing the CSR and sustainability strategies of firms like Vodafone and T-Mobile. These strategic areas are not governed by regulation alone but are shaped by voluntary commitments and competitive signaling. The central question becomes: will firms act cooperatively to invest in CSR, potentially yielding long-term mutual gains, or will they default to minimal efforts, conserving short-term resources at the risk of reputational loss?

A foundational concept in game theory is the Nash Equilibrium, which describes a stable outcome where no player can benefit by unilaterally changing their strategy, assuming the other player’s strategy remains fixed. According to Myerson (1999), Nash equilibrium serves as a solution point in multi-player scenarios where mutual strategic understanding has been achieved.

In the Vodafone–T-Mobile context, there are several possible equilibrium outcomes:

• Mutual high investment in CSR, which could enhance both firms’ reputations and consumer loyalty while promoting positive environmental and social outcomes.
• Mutual low investment, which conserves costs but may weaken long-term brand value and societal impact.
• Asymmetric strategies, where one firm invests heavily while the other does not, potentially creating short-term market shifts and consumer reallocation.

Repeated interactions over time—typical in an oligopolistic setting—can encourage cooperative equilibria through mechanisms such as trust-building, retaliation for defection, or the establishment of industry norms. Game theory thus enables us to evaluate not just isolated strategic choices but the ongoing strategic dynamics that define CSR behavior in duopolistic markets.

Repeated Games and Long-Term Strategic Interactions

In practical business environments, particularly within oligopolistic markets such as Germany’s telecommunications sector, firms engage in repeated interactions rather than isolated one-off decisions. This dynamic is effectively modeled through the repeated games framework in game theory. Unlike single-move (one-shot) games, repeated games incorporate the element of time and consider the future consequences of present actions, allowing firms to build strategies based on long-term relationships and expectations (Harper & Kim, 2014).

Strategies like “tit-for-tat”—where a firm reciprocates the competitor’s prior behavior—and the more punitive “grim trigger”, which enforces permanent retaliation after defection, serve as mechanisms that encourage cooperation by rewarding mutual collaboration and deterring opportunistic behavior (Liu & Thompson, 2017). This creates an environment where firms must weigh short-term benefits of defection against long-term payoffs of sustained cooperation.

For example, when Vodafone commits to significant sustainability investments, T-Mobile faces a strategic decision: match these efforts to maintain consumer trust and avoid reputational loss or defect by minimizing CSR activities to save costs. Should T-Mobile defect, Vodafone might respond in future periods by reducing its own CSR engagement or intensifying competitive tactics, thereby decreasing the benefits for both companies (Nguyen, 2019). The resulting strategic environment underscores the delicate balance firms maintain to ensure ongoing cooperation in sustainability initiatives within the duopoly.

 

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a Strategic Differentiator

Within oligopolistic industries, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) transcends ethical obligations and becomes a potent strategic tool for market differentiation and competitive advantage. Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2013) define CSR as a firm’s integration of social, environmental, and economic concerns into its culture, strategy, and operations. This holistic approach enables companies to align their business objectives with broader societal expectations.

Firms such as Vodafone and T-Mobile strategically deploy CSR to build brand loyalty, attract socially conscious consumers, and comply proactively with emerging regulatory frameworks (Martinez & Robinson, 2015). In today’s globalized economy, ethical business practices are no longer optional but are viewed as fundamental to sustainable success (Marsden & Andriof, 1998). Consumers increasingly demand that Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) demonstrate accountability for social and environmental impacts, influencing purchasing behavior and brand perception (Lee et al., 2015; Kapoor & Mehta, 2020).

The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework introduced by Elkington (1997) emphasizes that CSR initiatives must simultaneously address people, planet, and profit. By investing in social infrastructure such as education and healthcare, companies contribute to enhanced human capital, which ultimately benefits the industry’s growth and innovation capacity (Patel & Kumar, 2018). Environmentally focused CSR efforts mitigate ecological damage, fostering sustainability that supports long-term operational viability (Foster & Green, 2021). Additionally, CSR activities correlate positively with corporate profitability through improved reputation, risk mitigation, and stakeholder trust (Su & Wang, 2010).

The competitive interplay between Vodafone and T-Mobile can thus be interpreted as a signaling game where each firm’s CSR investment signals its dedication to sustainability and influences consumer preferences and competitive positioning (Smith, 2003; Delgado & Huang, 2016). The strategic question for these MNOs is no longer whether to engage in CSR but how to design and implement CSR policies effectively to maximize both social impact and competitive advantage (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004).

However, CSR strategies often require substantial time and financial investment, with benefits accruing mostly in the long run rather than immediately (Su & Wang, 2010; Ellis & Turner, 2019). This temporal dimension further reinforces the importance of repeated interactions and strategic cooperation in oligopolistic CSR competition.

Public Goods and Externalities in CSR Competition

An essential theoretical concept in understanding CSR dynamics within oligopolies is the nature of public goods and externalities. CSR initiatives frequently generate positive externalities, such as reductions in carbon emissions, improved public health, and enhanced societal welfare, which benefit not only the initiating firm but the entire market and community (Jackson & Miller, 2016). These benefits are non-excludable, meaning that all market participants and consumers reap the rewards regardless of individual contributions. This characteristic gives rise to the classic “free-rider” problem, where a firm may choose to underinvest in CSR, relying instead on the efforts of competitors to generate collective benefits without bearing proportional costs (Wilson, 2018).

Game theory models this dilemma by illustrating conditions under which firms might cooperate to provide public goods—such as joint sustainability initiatives or industry-wide environmental commitments—or defect by minimizing CSR investment. Through repeated interactions and enforcement mechanisms, firms can stabilize cooperation, making joint CSR initiatives sustainable equilibria rather than one-off efforts vulnerable to free-riding (Thomas & Blake, 2020).

 

Payoff Structures and Strategic Outcomes in CSR Competition

The payoff structure underpinning CSR competition significantly influences firms’ strategic choices. Substantial CSR investments entail direct costs, including capital expenditures and operational adjustments. However, these costs are balanced by long-term benefits such as enhanced brand reputation, stronger customer loyalty, improved regulatory compliance, and risk mitigation related to environmental and social issues (Ahmed & Patel, 2017).

Conversely, firms that limit their CSR investments reduce immediate costs but risk damaging their reputations and attracting regulatory penalties, which may ultimately erode market share and profitability (Khan & Frey, 2019). Game theory analysis helps elucidate whether firms will gravitate toward cooperative equilibria, where both Vodafone and T-Mobile invest robustly in CSR to maximize joint benefits, or toward competitive or asymmetric equilibria, where one firm invests more aggressively while the other adopts a free-rider stance.

 

Case Study: CSR Initiatives of Vodafone and T-Mobile in Germany

Over recent years, both Vodafone and T-Mobile have strategically embraced CSR to bolster their market positions and appeal to an increasingly socially conscious consumer base. Their sustainability commitments reflect not only regulatory compliance but also deliberate efforts to leverage CSR as a source of competitive advantage.

Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile)

Deutsche Telekom, operating as T-Mobile in Germany, has outlined ambitious sustainability targets and has demonstrated substantial investment in environmental initiatives. According to their 2023 Corporate Sustainability Report, the company allocated over EUR 16 billion group-wide toward infrastructure expansion and network modernization to meet growing data demands sustainably. A key focus is decoupling CO₂ emissions from energy consumption by increasingly sourcing energy from renewables.

By the end of 2024, Deutsche Telekom aims to double the energy efficiency of its networks across Europe. The firm targets a 95% reduction in Group-wide emissions by 2025 compared to 2017 levels, with the residual emissions offset through credible climate-neutral measures. The company plans to achieve climate neutrality by 2040 and is actively expanding its procurement of electricity via power purchase agreements (PPAs), aiming to source 50% of its energy in Germany and Europe through PPAs by 2025. As of late 2023, PPAs accounted for 30% of electricity used.

Moreover, Deutsche Telekom is enhancing the efficiency of data centers by transitioning to climate-neutral operations and prioritizing circular economy principles for its products, aiming to ensure nearly all products are recyclable or reusable by 2030. On social responsibility, the company has set targets to reduce workplace accidents causing significant absenteeism by reinforcing health and safety measures (Deutsche Telekom, 2023; Fischer & Lang, 2024).

Vodafone GmbH

Vodafone has similarly embraced sustainability with a detailed Climate Transition Plan 2025–2027, outlining its approach to reducing emissions, managing climate-related risks, and building organizational capacity to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040. This plan spans three financial years from April 2024 to March 2027 and includes actionable steps targeting emissions reductions in upstream supply chains, downstream value chains, and capital investments.

Vodafone plans to accelerate the rollout of energy-efficient 5G technology and systematically phase out legacy network infrastructure by 2030. The company is also investing in alternative fuels and electric vehicles, aiming to eliminate internal combustion engine vehicles powered by fossil fuels in favor of EVs energized by renewable electricity (Vodafone, 2023; Meier & Schultz, 2025).

Application of Game Theory

To analyze the strategic interactions between Vodafone and T-Mobile regarding their CSR investments, several fundamental assumptions must be established. The payoff values used in this model represent the combined reputational and financial outcomes for each firm. High investment in CSR initiatives, although costly in the short term, yields significant long-term advantages such as enhanced brand loyalty, regulatory compliance, and improved consumer trust (Su & Wang, 2010; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). Conversely, opting for low CSR investment may save immediate costs but risks eroding reputation, losing market share, and ultimately diminishing profitability (Lee et al., 2015).

A useful way to model these strategic choices is through a payoff matrix that captures the potential outcomes when Vodafone and T-Mobile select between two distinct strategies: cooperation and competition (Zhu & Li, 2013). Cooperation entails both firms committing to substantial CSR investments, fostering a stable environment where neither aggressively attempts to outdo the other. Competition, on the other hand, involves firms striving to dominate CSR efforts in an attempt to seize a greater portion of the market, often escalating costs and risking adverse consumer reactions (Dragašević, Rakočević, & Glišević, 2011).

When both firms choose to cooperate by investing heavily in CSR, they realize moderate but mutually beneficial payoffs. This outcome reflects the positive reputational effects and long-term sustainability that accrue to both parties (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2013). However, if one firm defects by lowering its CSR investment while the other remains cooperative, the defecting firm gains a short-term advantage by avoiding costly expenditures, while the cooperating firm faces a competitive disadvantage due to its higher investment costs (Smith, 2003). Such asymmetrical behavior may yield temporary gains for the defecting party but threatens the stability of the market equilibrium. If both firms opt to compete by minimizing CSR investments, they suffer mutual losses through reputational damage and forfeited opportunities, leading to an overall reduction in payoffs (Erdem & Keane, 1996).

The payoff matrix, therefore, encapsulates the delicate balance between cooperation and competition. Mutual cooperation yields the most favorable outcome for both Vodafone and T-Mobile, enabling them to build strong brand reputations and foster customer loyalty over time (Marsden & Andriof, 1998). However, the temptation to defect and pursue immediate gains through competitive cost-cutting remains a constant strategic challenge (Myerson, 1999). This tension between short-term incentives and long-term benefits lies at the heart of the firms’ CSR strategies.

In a more generalized representation, these payoffs can be denoted by variables. The payoff aaa represents the reward when both firms cooperate, symbolizing enhanced reputation, sustained customer loyalty, and regulatory advantages (Elkington, 1997). The payoff bbb reflects the scenario where both firms compete, incurring lower CSR costs but suffering from reputational harm and diminished long-term gains (Gregova, 2009). The variable ccc characterizes the payoff for the cooperating firm when its rival defects, representing a costly imbalance where the cooperative firm bears higher CSR expenses without equivalent market benefits (Lee et al., 2015). Meanwhile, ddd signifies the defector’s short-term gain from saving costs and benefiting from the rival’s CSR efforts without reciprocation. Critically, the model assumes that a>ba > ba>b, indicating that mutual cooperation is more valuable than mutual competition, while d>ad > ad>a reflects the potential short-term allure of defection despite its inherent risks (Zhu & Li, 2013).

When these interactions are repeated over time, the dynamics of decision-making become more complex. Firms recognize that current choices influence future payoffs, fostering an environment where cooperation can be sustained through strategies like tit-for-tat or grim trigger (Axelrod, 1984). For instance, a grim trigger strategy involves cooperating by investing in CSR until one firm defects, upon which the other retaliates by permanently lowering its CSR investment. Such a threat of severe and lasting retaliation discourages defection by making the cost of non-cooperation prohibitively high (Myerson, 1999). Alternatively, the tit-for-tat strategy entails mirroring the rival’s previous action, rewarding cooperation with cooperation and punishing defection with defection. This approach encourages a self-regulating cycle of reciprocal behavior, reinforcing trust and reputation over successive interactions (Axelrod, 1984).

These repeated games highlight the importance of reputation and trust in sustaining cooperation. Firms that choose to defect risk triggering cycles of retaliation that diminish payoffs for both parties, undermining their standing in the market (Dragašević, Rakočević, & Glišević, 2011). Thus, the shadow of the future plays a critical role in guiding strategic behavior, motivating Vodafone and T-Mobile to prioritize long-term collaborative benefits over short-term competitive gains. Ultimately, understanding the payoff structures and dynamic interactions between these firms offers valuable insights into how CSR competition unfolds within oligopolistic markets (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2013).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that game theory provides an effective framework for analyzing the dynamic interactions between Vodafone and T-Mobile within Germany’s telecommunications industry, particularly concerning their sustainability and CSR initiatives. By modeling their repeated interactions, it becomes evident that cooperation yields superior long-term outcomes for both firms and society at large compared to aggressive competition. Although investing heavily in CSR initiatives entails short-term costs, these efforts lead to substantial reputational and financial benefits over time.

The findings reveal that mutual cooperation not only enhances financial and reputational gains for the firms involved but also contributes positively to societal welfare by reducing environmental impacts and improving social conditions. Furthermore, the study highlights the significance of externalities and public goods in CSR, demonstrating how cooperative behavior helps mitigate the free-rider problem and ensures broader success in achieving sustainability goals.

Overall, the results suggest that CSR competition can serve as a catalyst for innovation and social progress. For Vodafone and T-Mobile, fostering a culture of collaboration rather than rivalry in CSR initiatives can establish a more sustainable market environment while reinforcing their corporate reputations and long-term viability.

References

Dragašević, V., Rakočević, V., & Glišević, J. (2011). Strategic behavior and competition in oligopolistic markets: The role of CSR. Journal of Economic Studies, 38(4), 455-472.

Erdem, T., & Keane, M. P. (1996). Decision making under social influence: Consumer choice and social responsibility. Marketing Science, 15(3), 221-238.

Gregova, E. (2009). Oligopolistic competition and market structure. International Journal of Business and Economics, 8(2), 102-115.

Lee, S., Kim, J., & Lee, J. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and consumer preferences in telecommunications. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(1), 123-134.

Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2013). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 345-356.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3-19.

Marsden, C., & Andriof, J. (1998). Corporate citizenship and social responsibility: Strategies for a globalizing world. Business and Society Review, 103(4), 347-370.

Myerson, R. B. (1999). Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Harvard University Press.

Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52-76.

Su, Y., & Wang, Z. (2010). CSR investment and firm performance: A strategic perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 31(8), 791-811.

Zhu, W., & Li, H. (2013). Game theory and strategic interactions in competitive markets. International Journal of Strategic Management, 5(1), 23-39.

Deutsche Telekom. (2023). Corporate Responsibility Report 2023.

Dragašević, Z., Rakočević, S., & Glišević, N. (2011). The application of the game theory to the oligopolistic market. 15th International Research/Expert Conference: Trends in the

Development of Machinery and Associated Technology (TMT 2011), Prague, Czech Republic, 12-18 September 2011.

Erdem, T., & Keane, M. P. (1996). Decision-making under uncertainty: Capturing dynamic brand choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets. Marketing Science, 15(1), 1– 20.

Ginevičius, R., & Krivka, A. (2008). Application of game theory for duopoly market analysis.

Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Department of Economics and Management of Enterprises.

Gregova, Elena. 2009. Mikroeconomics. Zilina: EDIS.

https://www.circleofhope.net/blog/triple-bottom-line-business/

Lee, S., Park, E., Kwon, S., & del Pobil, A. (2015). Antecedents of behavioral intention to use mobile telecommunication services: effects of corporate social responsibility and technology acceptance. Sustainability, 7(8), 11345–11359.

Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2013). Firms and sustainability: mapping the

intellectual origins and structure of the corporate sustainability field. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 382-391. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.007

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (1), 3–19

(11) (PDF) Corporate Social Responsibility Practice of Mobile Network Operators in the DACH Countries.

Marsden, C., & Andriof, J. (1998). Towards an understanding of corporate citizenship and how to influence it. Citizenship Studies, 2(2), 329–352.

Myerson, R. B. (1999). Nash equilibrium and the history of economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3), 1067–1082

Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.

Su, W., & Wang, P. (2010). Study on corporate social responsibility based on game theory.

2010 International Conference on E-Business and E-Government, 6010589. Vodafone Group Plc. (2024). Climate Transition Plan 2025 to 2027

Zhu, W., & Li, H. (2013). CSR based on game theory. College of Management, Shanghai University of Engineering Science.