Good afternoon, Members of the Board, dear shareholders.
I am Gomotsegang Brown Matloko, I am from Wonderkop community in Marikana. I am speaking to you directly from South Africa, on the effectiveness or better: the lack of effectiveness of BASF’s human rights and environmental due diligence measures within its supply chain.
BASF rightly emphasizes its commitment to sustainability and responsible sourcing. These commitments are laudable on paper. However, the true measure of commitment and responsibility lies not in policy documents, but in tangible outcomes on the ground. Concerning the sourcing of platinum from Sibanye-Stillwater in South Africa, we see a significant and persistent gap between stated intentions and reality.
This should no longer come as a surprise to shareholders: 10 years ago, Bishop Jo Seoka first denounced BASF’s lack of responsibility with regard to the platinum supply chain from South Africa at the Annual General Meeting.
For years now, as activists supported by local NGOs, we have engaged with Sibanye-Stillwater regarding the dire situation faced by communities impacted by mining operations. Raw materials mined by Sibanye-Stillwater remain essential for BASF. This, however, must not come at the cost of fundamental human rights, environmental and safety violations.
BASF has assured us that it is engaging with Sibanye-Stillwater, applying pressure to improve inadequate living conditions for workers and communities, and demanding the full implementation of the legally binding Social and Labour Plan (SLP). In addition, we already raised concrete issues with BASF in 2024 regarding waterflows, air quality, tailing dam safety, and other safety gaps, which for example caused the death of a child), as well as shortcomings of the grievance mechanism and responses of Sibanye Stillwater.
Yet, here we are in 2025 and ask: What substantial progress can BASF really demonstrate? Despite years of dialogue, audits, and supposed pressure, the promised improvements remain largely elusive. The communities continue to live with the consequences of unfulfilled promises, human rights violations and safety challenges. The binding SLP, designed to ensure mining activities benefit local communities and workers, remains inadequately implemented.
For years, I have raised urgent warnings about the concrete environmental risks associated with Sibanye-Stillwater’s operations. I have highlighted the concrete dangers posed by tailings dams and other aging mining infrastructure. Those threaten not only the environment but the very lives and safety of people living nearby. These are not theoretical risks; they are ticking time bombs, neither recognised nor treated preventively by Sibanye-Stillwater. This lack of action is deeply concerning.
Only a week ago, I managed to get the manager responsible for Tailing Dam No. 6 from Sibanye-Stillwater to take a look at the wastewater that is leaking from the dams directly into our rivers. This is impacting livestock drinking from the river and people using the river for rituals and fishing.
He dismissed my concerns about the situation and impacts affecting Wonderkop community. His comment about me “wasting his time” really struck me and it was clear to me that it served to intimidate. This reaction makes it even more difficult in future to express concerns directly to the community. I found myself in a position where I’m essentially doing his job by monitoring the dam, which he is paid to oversee.
The lack of intentional and committed monitoring of the company’s impact raises a serious concern regarding the grievance mechanism at Sibanye Stillwater.
We had hoped that the most recent audit process (the IRMA audit) concerning Sibanye-Stillwater might finally bring clarity and signal a turning point. Instead, we understand that this audit has raised even more questions and, tragically, has led to greater mistrust in my community. This is an alarming development. It suggests that either BASF’s oversight mechanisms through audits are failing to grasp the reality on the ground, or that Sibanye-Stillwater is not engaging transparently in the audit, or perhaps both. Either way, it demonstrates a failure in the current approach.
In your BASF report for 2024, you mention on page 311 an in-person meeting in Germany in September 2024, where, according to your report, “representatives of our suppliers and of NGOs from South Africa and Germany, as well as other experts, held a constructive discussion on the environmental and human rights-related situation.” Also, you mention that you will take “further measures designed to minimise BASF’s negative impacts on affected communities and support positive impacts”.
As a participant to that meeting, I can confirm that we agreed on concrete next steps. For example, to get an independent expert, recognised by all sides, to visit the local Sibanye Stillwater tailing site with civil society, community representatives and the mining company to exchange and understand locally observed concerns together, explore ways of involvement and collaboration, trust-building and to address the other problems raised.
As far as I know, none of the agreements has been honoured thus far.
The only thing we observe is that Sibanye Stillwater relies heavily upon external consultants to paint a busy picture but there is neither a serious exchange regarding the concerns, nor real sustainable community engagement that is creating meaningful change.
I had also sent a direct letter to BASF and a Memorandum of Demands, which to this day have not yet been responded to.
Therefore, I am asking you, the Board of Executive Directors of BASF:
- How do you deal with the repeatedly communicated environmental risks posed by Sibanye-Stillwater’s tailings dams and other mine infrastructure and the Sibanye-Stillwater smelter in Wonderkop?
- What is the current status of the measures agreed with Sibanye-Stillwater in Berlin, especially regarding the idea to get an independent expert, recognized by all sides and to officially respond to the community complaint?
- The current Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) audit process is entirely in the control of the mine. How do you guarantee impartiality, objectivity, integrity and independence of the results in such a scenario? Can we expect a full publication of the audit results once it is complete?
- What is the current BASF business relationship with Sibanye-Stillwater? What further plans or projects do you have with Sibanye-Stillwater?
- If you were to source significantly less raw materials from Sibanye-Stillwater in South Africa in the future and entire mines will have to close, would you also participate in just transition programs? If so, how exactly? And if not, why not?
- How do you see your legacy responsibility towards communities affected by Sibanye Stillwater operations?
- Have you and/or any of your subsidiaries sourced raw materials directly or indirectly from the companies listed below in the past financial year or now in the current financial year, and if so, which ones and how many? Please also state the names of the mines from which these raw materials originate: Sibanye-Stillwater, Samancor (Samancor Chrome), AngloAmerican und Rio Tinto?
This persistent failure with a key supplier like Sibanye-Stillwater is not merely an isolated incident. It forces us to ask difficult questions about BASF’s entire due diligence framework. If years of targeted engagement with a major supplier yield such unsatisfactory results and deepening mistrust, how can we be confident that BASF is effectively identifying, mitigating, and remediating human rights and environmental risks across its vast and complex global supply chain, as required by the German Supply Chain Act?
Dialogue is necessary, but dialogue without consequences, without tangible progress, becomes hollow. At what point can we call continued engagement without meaningful change inaction?
Therefore, we demand more than renewed assurances. We demand:
- Transparency: Full disclosure of the findings of the recent audit concerning Sibanye-Stillwater once it is completed and the specific, time-bound corrective actions BASF is requiring from its supplier.
- Accountability: A clear explanation of the consequences Sibanye-Stillwater will face if substantial, verifiable improvements regarding living conditions, SLP implementation, and environmental safety (particularly concerning tailings management) are not achieved within a publicly stated, short timeframe.
- Review: A fundamental, independent review of the effectiveness of BASF’s human rights and environmental due diligence processes, using the Sibanye-Stillwater case as a stark example of where the current system is failing.
BASF’s reputation, its social license to operate, and indeed, the stability of its supply chain, depend on ensuring its actions align with its values. The situation with Sibanye-Stillwater demonstrates that significant improvement is urgently needed. We expect BASF to act decisively.
Thank you.
