We expect the new federal government to do more than just use expressions such as Zeitenwende (turning point) and Deutschlandgeschwindigkeit (German speed). Now is the time for action. It is good that we are probably moving from a three-party to a two-party constellation. That reduces the complexity. The new government will realise that it has to act realistically and quickly.

Because the need for action is much greater than before. I think the CDU knows this, and the SPD has also learnt that things can't go on like this. My expectation is that things can only get better.

Twelve months ago, I would have clearly been against it. But today the situation is different. It's about investment – and in two areas. Firstly, in defence. For weeks now, everyone has been asking the question: Is Europe capable of defence? In view of the tectonic plate shifts in NATO defence, I think it is absolutely right to face up to this. Secondly, the infrastructure fund: it is also absolutely right that we will at last invest in infrastructure. I hope that politicians will now finally take care of location factors and competitiveness. We now need courageous politicians to move the country forward again.

One of the reasons why deindustrialisation has occurred in the energy-intensive industries is because politicians have failed to act in recent years. Rising energy prices, excessive bureaucracy and other factors have made us uncompetitive. Many companies, including ourselves, have drawn the consequences and stopped investing in Germany. At the same time, companies in the chemical industry have restructured significantly in order to become competitive again. After the chemical industry, other sectors went into restructuring in 2024, above all the automotive and mechanical engineering industries. But the construction and agricultural industries were also affected. It is now high time for politicians to act.

It will take one to two years for political decisions to lead to an improved environment. However, I hope that the relevant political signals will lead to more optimism in the economy. This will halt deindustrialisation. However, we need to regain confidence nationally and internationally, and work on our competitiveness, so that people will invest in Germany again.

Companies that have been closed or relocated will not come back. People will only invest in Germany if they can earn money here again. Germany has everything it needs to become a great location again, but it needs good location factors, and a willingness to perform from everyone.

We last made an expansion investment in Germany in 2019. In principle, we are prepared to invest here again, but the framework conditions will have to be different. Germany and Europe must act quickly and decisively now – otherwise there will be no investment. Many other countries have long since recognised how important industry is. They are all trying to retain industry and attract it to their own country.

The first thing is cutting bureaucracy. Bureaucracy monsters such as the Supply Chain Act or the new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are a burden on the location, with little added value but high costs. The second is that, as an industrialised nation, we need a pragmatic energy policy and competitive energy prices for the coming years. These are the two most important issues.

… we have included the CSRD in this year's annual report. That's at least an additional 120 pages, we have to determine over 700 data points and have them audited. In my view, this is completely excessive and does not create any added value. The EU Commission was the first to introduce the taxonomy. It was introduced for the capital markets, and nobody there cares about it. No investor has asked me about it since it was introduced four years ago.

The reason is different. In the last twelve months, I have started to ask investors whether they read the taxonomy report. The answer is: No, it's irrelevant to us. Why? Analysts and investors do not follow the taxonomy or CSRD. They look in detail at the sustainability rating of the relevant agencies MSCI, ISS ESG, CDP and others.

The agencies analyse our annual report and request additional data if necessary. If we do not provide this, we fall behind in the rating or are dropped. Taxonomy and CSRD reporting therefore do not add any value. My conclusion is: if Brussels is serious about reducing bureaucracy, then the CSRD should be scrapped without replacement.

We are not compromising on our sustainability goals. For us, sustainability is a business case that we will continue to pursue. With rising certificate prices, some production becomes uneconomical. This alone makes it worthwhile to reduce CO2 emissions.

About the person

Matthias Zachert and Lanxess form a unit. Although the business administration graduate left the chemical company between 2011 and 2014, Lanxess, which Bayer floated on the stock exchange in 2005 via a spin-off, is his „baby“. Born in Bonn in 1967, he began his professional career at Frankfurt Hoechst AG, which was later merged into Aventis. He began his Lanxess career as CFO in 2004 and has been CEO since 2024.

There are not many investors in the USA who look at this in detail. This is usually limited to checking the ratings. If you're doing well, nobody asks questions.

It's too early to say. But there won't be anyone forcing us to abandon sustainability goals.

That has long been the case in Europe. Take the rubber industry, for example. When we sold our rubber business, there were a dozen tyre factories in Germany. Today, four or five of them are on the brink of closure. This is reducing polymer production for rubber. Plastics manufacturers are also putting question marks behind their production facilities in Europe. In the energy-intensive sectors, customers and suppliers are drawing the consequences. However, this increases our dependence on foreign countries, as we cannot manage without these products.

It is not possible to make a generalised statement for all sectors. I will therefore limit myself to the chemical industry. In aggregate, the chemical industry in the USA exports more to Europe than vice versa. The chemical industry was not directly affected by tariffs during the first Trump administration. I assume that the chemical industry will not be the focus of the second Trump administration either.

We already analysed last summer where tariffs could be imposed. We have expanded our production base in America from 12% to 30% over the past ten years. We now have 30% of sales and production locally. We are therefore relatively relaxed about tariffs. In addition, we have also looked at where we have Chinese competition in the USA. If higher tariffs are imposed on them, which Trump is apparently planning to do, this will be rather positive for us.

The indirect impact is much more difficult to determine. It is less transparent. We are monitoring this and are in dialogue with our customers. The entire global economy will be affected, especially if China takes countermeasures. Then we run the risk of global economic growth slowing down, and the chemical industry will feel the effects. At a time when everything is in turmoil, we need to take a sober and objective look at what we can do ourselves.

It is currently very risky to make forecasts. In 2024, the European chemical industry has at least stabilised, partly due to its own restructuring measures. Regionally, the USA was a stable guarantor in 2024 – its future economic development is difficult to predict. China will probably stabilise and perform slightly better. In Europe, we will have to wait and see: on the one hand, how heavily the various European industries will be subject to tariffs. On the other hand, what industrial revitalisation can be induced by European politics. In terms of the general weather situation, this means that we may have left the valley of tears behind us, but the ascent will be tough for the time being.