21H
It's actually sad what the government has done to a global corporation
😢
😢
•
66
•
21H
@Smudeo that people always blame the government. This trend isn’t just the government’s fault. BASF has grown so large because it was the first to master certain processes—processes that, in some cases, have changed the world, such as the Haber-Bosch process. Nowadays, virtually anyone can master the established chemical processes; it’s simply a matter of who can do so most cost-effectively. Since we in Germany have neither the natural resources nor the low wages of other countries, the only significant lever we have is efficiency. And that, after all, is limited. It was entirely foreseeable that this development would take place, and poor policy has certainly accelerated this trend—but it definitely did not trigger it.
•
44
•
@Smudeo Just like the German government, the company has relied on cheap energy from Russia for too long and ignored geopolitical warning signs.
To blame all of this on the government now is, in my view, too simplistic.
To blame all of this on the government now is, in my view, too simplistic.
•
44
•20H
Who sets the framework for businesses? As a rule, it’s probably politicians. This applies to wages (taxes and levies) as well as to everything else. Cheap energy is still available. We could engage in fracking ourselves—but we prefer to buy it at a high price from abroad. Anyone who thinks this helps the environment is free to believe it. But for everyone else, the truth should become clear.
•
11
•
@Mo28 On top of that, BASF itself has become too slow in its internal processes. It’s the classic problem faced by many corporations.
Instead of reacting quickly to changing circumstances, everything gets discussed to death through 20 levels of hierarchy, and by then it’s too late.
Instead of reacting quickly to changing circumstances, everything gets discussed to death through 20 levels of hierarchy, and by then it’s too late.
•
33
•@A1bund7 The issue of regulatory frameworks isn’t a one-way street.
You can see this, for example, with BASF, the CDU, and reforms related to REACH and the regulation of PFAS. BASF strongly advocates against the reforms and in favor of a risk-based approach. These positions were, in some cases, adopted verbatim into the CDU’s election platform—even though the party’s lead candidate at the time, and our current Chancellor, once served on BASF’s board of directors and had previously represented the company in court as a lawyer.
This is just one example among many; in particular, the “Big Four” management consulting firms (Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG) are also frequently consulted when drafting laws that have a direct impact on their clients. To put it diplomatically, there is a risk of conflicts of interest here.
You can see this, for example, with BASF, the CDU, and reforms related to REACH and the regulation of PFAS. BASF strongly advocates against the reforms and in favor of a risk-based approach. These positions were, in some cases, adopted verbatim into the CDU’s election platform—even though the party’s lead candidate at the time, and our current Chancellor, once served on BASF’s board of directors and had previously represented the company in court as a lawyer.
This is just one example among many; in particular, the “Big Four” management consulting firms (Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG) are also frequently consulted when drafting laws that have a direct impact on their clients. To put it diplomatically, there is a risk of conflicts of interest here.
•
22
•20H
@SteelAnacott I don’t deny that companies exert influence. Nevertheless, political responsibility for the overall framework remains with policymakers. BASF may be able to make its voice heard on specific regulations while at the same time suffering from unfavorable business conditions. Lobbying influence is not proof of competitive energy prices, taxes, or permitting processes. Both can be true at the same time.
••
@A1bund7 I did not claim that lobbying influence is evidence of competitive energy prices.
However, in countries where there is a power imbalance between companies and the state—take, for example, Volkswagen and the state of Lower Saxony—the question arises as to who is actually setting the framework conditions here.
However, in countries where there is a power imbalance between companies and the state—take, for example, Volkswagen and the state of Lower Saxony—the question arises as to who is actually setting the framework conditions here.
••
19H
@SteelAnacott That's right, you didn't say that exactly. So your point is that economic dependence creates political pressure. I agree with that. Still, influence doesn't equate to sole decision-making power. Even your VW example initially illustrates a power dynamic, not complete control over the conditions at the location. Companies can be politically influential while at the same time suffering under framework conditions that they themselves would prefer to see changed.
••