Dear members of the Executive Board and Supervisory Board,
Dear shareholders,
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I would like to begin by saying that I have been attending BASF’s AGMs online over time. However, I felt it was important to be here in person today, because I have increasingly sensed that the voices and lived experiences of affected communities in your supply chains are not always fully heard.
I am speaking today not as an investor, but as someone from a mining-affected community, and from my own lived experience over the past 37 years. Over the past three years, I have raised the same issues repeatedly. At the AGM in 2024 & 2025, my translator informed you about air pollution, water contamination, and unsafe tailings facilities sourrounding my community Wonderkop and I also used the grievance mechanisms. Yet today, in 2026, the same issues persist. Your direct business partner and platinum supplier Sibanye-Stillwater is directly responsible for those negative impacts of their mining operations, but has not been willing to adequately respond the concerns of my community.
We also travelled to Berlin in 2024 to engage directly with BASF.
In your AGM 2025, I raised concerns about the gap between BASF’s commitments and the lived reality, including the failure of grievance mechanisms. Yet today, in 2026, the same issues persist.
My concern today, as before, relates to BASF’s exposure to supply chain risks in Wonderkop, within the broader Marikana area.
I would like to respectfully highlight that, in many discussions, reference is often made broadly to “Marikana,” while communities such as Wonderkop — located approximately 5 km east of Marikana town and in very close proximity, in some cases less than one kilometer, to mining infrastructure — are not always explicitly recognized. This can unintentionally overlook the direct exposure and lived realities of the communities most affected.
This region is approaching a critical transition. The life span of several mining shafts is nearing its end — including operations such as Rowland Shaft — and this raises important questions about what will remain for the community once mining activities cease.
Over time, there have been repeated concerns raised by the community regarding environmental conditions. These include tailings management, water contamination affecting streams and groundwater, and impacts on livestock, agriculture, and aquatic life.
There are also growing concerns about air quality. In communities located close to tailings facilities and platinum group metal smelting operations, people are exposed to dust and emissions on a daily basis. From a technical perspective, this includes particulate matter such as PM10 and finer particles like PM2.5, as well as gases such as sulphur dioxide (SO₂) and potentially trace heavy metals.
PM2.5 particles are particularly concerning, as they are small enough to be inhaled deeply into the lungs and can enter the bloodstream, potentially affecting vital organs over time, including the lungs and heart. For communities, this translates into everyday concerns about long-term health and well-being:
Breathing air that may not feel clean, worrying about long-term health, and not always having clear information about the level of risk or how to reduce exposure.
At the same time, workers within mining operations, such as those employed by Sibanye-Stillwater, are provided with personal protective equipment to manage occupational exposure. This creates a visible gap, as surrounding communities who may face similar environmental exposure do not have access to comparable protection or clear guidance.
There are also concerns regarding consultation and meaningful engagement. While inadequate engagement frameworks may exist, many community members feel that their concerns are not always fully reflected in decisions or outcomes.
There have also been tragic incidents associated with tailings areas, including loss of life like the drowning of a child, which underline the seriousness of these risks and the importance of prevention.
The problems with the tailings dams are not isolated incidents. They are constant and recurring.
There are repeated leaks, overspilling incidents, wastewater discharges, and visible structural problems affecting aging tailings infrastructure near residential communities around Marikana. These are not theoretical concerns. They represent an ongoing and tangible danger for people living nearby.
A recent incident in March 2026 at the Karee site illustrates this clearly. During attempts to repair an already cracked tailings dam structure located only around two kilometers from nearby settlements, an excavator became trapped in the unstable mud. The existence of visible cracks alone demonstrates the alarming condition of the infrastructure. In the event of a larger structural failure, communities living in close proximity would face potentially devastating consequences.
The tailing dam no:5 was known to be dormant and we have recently learned that, the dam has been recommisioned without consulting the affected communities. Tailings Dam Facility 5 is not fully secured and it is situated at 800 metres away from Middlekraal community- 2 kilometres away from Wonderkop.
On 24 April 2026, a siren alarm sounded at Tailings Dam Facility 6 at 5 o’clock in the morning and it prolonged to allow me to drive from my home to the tailing facility no:6 and find it still active.
The community panicked, but no communication was provided. The day before, the return water dam was overflowing which indicate that, tailing return water dam has reach its own capacity or limit designed for.
What is the purpose of an emergency system if the people at risk are not informed?
In addition, I would like to reflect on the role of independent standards. It is understood that companies such as BASF rely on frameworks such as the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, the International Organization for Standardization, and the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM).
One of the key principles within GISTM is the importance of ongoing engagement with affected communities, especially when there are changes to tailings facilities — whether engineering, technical, operational, or construction-related throughout the life cycle of the facility.
However, from what we observe on the ground, there are instances where changes appear to be implemented without prior community awareness or engagement. For example, the installation of spray systems that release water from tailings facilities Tailing no:6 into the atmosphere has raised questions within the community, particularly where there has been limited communication about their purpose or potential impact.
In Berlin 2024, we were told the TD6 return water dam would be decommissioned. Instead, it has been repurposed without consultation. In July 2025, BASF shared information inconsistent with what is happening on the ground.
BASF appears to rely on supplier responses without independent verification.
This contributes to a broader concern about the gap between what is reported through audits and standards, and what is experienced in daily life by communities.
We have seen similar long-term challenges in areas such as Stilfontein, where after mine closure, communities have faced ongoing economic hardship, environmental degradation, and safety concerns.
I would also like to raise a broader observation regarding development initiatives in the area. There are efforts and projects that are presented as contributing to local economic development and life after mine. While these initiatives are appreciated, there is a perception within parts of the community that their benefits and participation opportunities may not always be broadly inclusive. In some cases, community members feel that their role remains primarily that of participants or workers, rather than having a sense of ownership or long-term sustainability in these initiatives.
This creates some uncertainty about whether such efforts will lead to lasting, community-driven economic resilience beyond the life of mining operations.
Wonderkop community remains largely excluded from environmental monitoring and remediation processes. When concerns are raised, external consultants are typically appointed without integrating local participation.
Community inclusion would enhance sustainability, transparency, economic opportunity, and long-term stability. It is requested that BASF consider incorporating community participation mechanisms within its supplier oversight processes.
Against this background, I would like to ask:
- “How does BASF ensure that information obtained through audits and standards including IRMA, ISO, and GISTM is independently verified against on-the-ground conditions, particularly where community experience may suggest a different reality?”
- “How does BASF ensure that key principles such as meaningful community engagement, especially in relation to changes in tailings facilities, are consistently implemented in practice?”
- “And as mining operations approach the end of their life span, what role does BASF see itself playing in ensuring that communities like Wonderkop which are in very close proximity to mining activities are not left facing long-term environmental, economic, and safety challenges similar to those observed in Stilfontein?”
- How is BASF cooperating with the ongoing investigation by BAFA regarding the complaint connected to Sibanye-Stillwater, and what concrete documents, risk analyses, or remediation measures has BASF submitted to the authority so far?
- Has BASF identified shortcomings or failures in its own human rights and environmental due diligence processes as a result of the BAFA complaint and investigation? If yes, which specific shortcomings?
- What immediate and concrete measures has BASF demanded from Sibanye-Stillwater regarding the recurring leaks, overspilling incidents, wastewater discharges, and structural deficiencies affecting tailings dams and settling basins near Marikana communities?
- Does BASF independently verify the structural integrity and safety of tailings dams connected to its platinum supply chain, or does it rely solely on information and audits controlled by the mining company itself?
- Following the March 2026 Karee tailings dam incident, what specific investigations, independent inspections, or emergency risk mitigation measures have been initiated by BASF or required from Sibanye-Stillwater?
- Does BASF consider the current grievance mechanisms and audit systems at Sibanye-Stillwater to be effective and trustworthy, despite persistent community mistrust?
- Will BASF commit to publicly disclosing the full findings of the ongoing IRMA audit process concerning Sibanye-Stillwater, including all identified non-conformities, corrective action plans, and implementation timelines?
- What consequences will BASF impose if Sibanye-Stillwater fails to implement verifiable improvements regarding environmental safety, Social and Labour Plan obligations, and protection of surrounding communities within a clearly defined timeframe?
- What is BASF’s current and planned future business relationship with Sibanye-Stillwater, including procurement volumes, procurement value, and future sourcing plans for platinum group metals?
- Does BASF acknowledge a legacy responsibility toward communities affected by decades of mining operations connected to BASF’s platinum supply chain? If yes, how is this reflected concretely in remediation, long-term monitoring, and community support?
- In light of the ongoing BAFA investigation, will BASF commission an independent external review of the effectiveness of its entire human rights and environmental due diligence system for high-risk raw material supply chains?
I raise these points with the intention of contributing constructively to a better understanding of how policies translate into real-world outcomes for communities like ours.
Thank you.
