BASF Case

When we speak on BASF’s efforts to restrict stakeholder pressure, the stakeholders, whom we are referring to, are the town’s commission and its populace. The two primary efforts which BASF has made to resist their pressure are: assuaging their fears and subverting their demands.Now, BASF attempted to their assuage fears by claiming no third party waste would be brought to this new waste facility. They also claimed that all waste, whether toxic or non-toxic, would be incinerated and, thus, should pose no threat to the townspeople.Additionally, BASF released two printed volumes which detailed how the waste would be incinerated. And, repeatedly, the company assured the public that building the new plant would create jobs and be perfectly safe for the community. They proclaimed that there would be no harmful effect on the environment now, nor at any time in the future. On the subversion end, BASF used many techniques. They cajoled the county commission into selling the prop erty without requiring appropriate background data and environmental information.Also, they altered their proposal after submitting it to the town council, and the data which they released was highly suspect according to a local professor. They also used high powered lawyers in efforts to push through the land’s sale and to obtain the appropriate environmental certification. This certification would allow the plant’s development to proceed. All of these tactics were a subversion of the local townspeople’s trust and wishes. However, these have been relatively affective measures in resisting stakeholder pressure, and, likely, the plant will be built.