BASF Raises Evonik Takeover Bid to More Than €11 Billion as European Chemicals Sector Reshapes - Global Cosmetics News

BASF’s reported higher bid signals a serious attempt to acquire Evonik, a major German speciality chemicals manufacturer. The offer would value Evonik at more than €11 billion. It matters because a combination could reshape competition in European chemicals and bring together suppliers serving cosmetics and personal care markets.

The revised proposal is worth about €24 per Evonik share. That compares with an earlier offer valued at roughly €10.3 billion. BASF has also reportedly offered employment and production guarantees, including commitments to honour existing job protections through 2032.

The acquisition is not complete. Discussions remain ongoing, and Evonik’s largest shareholder, RAG-Stiftung, may be important to any agreement. The companies have declined to comment, so the final price, terms and outcome remain unconfirmed.

Specialty chemicals are chemicals made for particular jobs in a product or process. Unlike bulk chemicals, their value often comes from precise performance, such as improving texture, stability, spreadability or durability. Evonik is described as a major supplier of speciality chemicals and ingredients for cosmetics and personal care.

For example, a functional additive may help a cream feel smoother or keep its ingredients evenly distributed. A performance material may improve how a product behaves during use or storage. These substances are added in controlled amounts, so their specific properties can influence the final formulation.

The article does not list individual Evonik ingredients or explain their chemistry. In general, manufacturers choose specialty chemicals because they provide targeted effects that ordinary base materials may not deliver. Their importance helps explain why BASF would seek to combine two suppliers serving these markets.

The reported takeover proposal is valued at more than €11 billion. BASF’s revised offer is approximately €24 for each Evonik share. This scale would make the transaction a major consolidation move in Europe’s chemicals sector and would combine two important speciality-chemicals suppliers.

The new proposal is higher than BASF’s earlier offer, which was worth around €10.3 billion. The article does not give the earlier offer’s per-share price, so the two bids should not be compared as identical per-share figures. It does state that the revised offer carries a premium of about 38%.

That premium is measured against Evonik’s share price before takeover speculation emerged in September. The figures show BASF has increased its proposed price, but they do not prove shareholders will accept it. Talks remain active, and no transaction has been confirmed.

RAG-Stiftung could have major influence because it holds the largest shareholder position in Evonik. A large shareholder can affect whether a takeover proposal receives sufficient backing, especially when the offer requires shareholder approval or support for an agreement. The article expects the foundation to play a central role.

For example, if RAG-Stiftung supports BASF’s reported €24-per-share proposal, that could strengthen the bid’s chances. If it rejects the terms or seeks stronger guarantees, BASF may need to improve the offer or change its commitments. Its influence comes from ownership, not from running BASF or Evonik.

The article does not state RAG-Stiftung’s position or describe formal voting requirements. It only identifies the foundation as Evonik’s largest shareholder and says it is expected to matter. Since discussions remain ongoing, its eventual stance could help determine whether negotiations become a completed transaction.

If BASF takes control, Evonik’s employees and sites could receive protections under the reported proposal. BASF has reportedly offered guarantees covering employment and production facilities. It also committed to honour existing job protections through 2032. These promises are intended to address concerns about disruption after a takeover.

The practical example is a commitment to keep existing employment protections in place for a defined period. Production facilities could also receive guarantees, which may reduce the immediate risk of closures or transfers. At the same time, combining companies can create overlapping operations, so longer-term capacity decisions would depend on the final terms.

Nothing is settled. The article does not say that any factory will close, expand or change ownership arrangements. It links the talks to pressure to consolidate production capacity, but the reported guarantees suggest BASF is addressing those concerns. The outcome for workers and facilities depends on whether a deal is reached.

European chemical companies are facing several pressures at once. Weak demand can leave factories operating below their potential. High operating costs reduce margins. Growing competition from Asia can make European production less competitive. Together, these conditions encourage companies to seek scale and stronger market positions.

A merger can combine purchasing, research, logistics and production networks. It may also allow companies to consolidate overlapping capacity and spread fixed costs across more sales. In the BASF-Evonik case, the proposed combination would unite major suppliers of speciality chemicals and ingredients used in cosmetics and personal care.

Consolidation is not automatically beneficial for every site or worker. It can create efficiencies, but it may also lead to difficult decisions about facilities and capacity. The article presents the negotiations as a response to mounting sector pressure, not as proof that a merger will solve all problems. The talks remain unconfirmed.

Chemical manufacturers begin with raw materials and use controlled reactions to create molecules with desired properties. They then separate, purify and test the products. Finally, they may blend or formulate them into additives or performance materials. This explanation uses established chemistry knowledge; the article identifies the outputs but does not describe the manufacturing steps.

For example, a producer might design an ingredient that mixes well with other cosmetic components or remains stable during storage. A formulation team then adds a measured amount to a cream, shampoo or other product. The additive’s physical and chemical properties can influence texture, consistency, shelf stability or how the product performs during use.

The key mechanism is property control. Manufacturers adjust composition, particle size, concentration and processing conditions to achieve a specific effect. Evonik is described as supplying functional additives and performance materials, but the article does not identify particular products. BASF’s reported interest reflects the value of these specialised applications.