BRIEFING

Gender balance on the boards of significant banks in the Banking Union

Summary EGOV analysed publicly available information on the corporate governance structures to determine the gender balance on the boards of the banks in the euro area supervised by the ECB (“significant institutions”), comparing the situation in 2014 with that in 2020. The general observation is that, overall, the share of female executive directors has risen in significant banks from 15.3% to 27.4% (see figure 1) and the share of female supervisory directors has increased from 22.3% to 31.7% (see figure 2, further down); these levels are still quite distant from an equal gender distribution. Moreover, the differences between the nature of board (executive versus supervisory boards) and between the type of bank (large versus small) have become smaller. Large banks are, for our purposes, those with assets exceeding EUR 100 bn. Large differences in the share of female directors persist, though, if the data is grouped at the country level.

Figure 1: Share of female executive directors (2014 vs. 2020, in %)

30,0 27,4 28,2 26,4 25,0

20,0 17,7 15,3 15,0 11,8

10,0

% of female directors 5,0

0,0 Average share Large banks Small banks

2014 2020

Source: EGOV

Economic Governance Support Unit (EGOV) Authors: G. Gotti, K. Komazec, M. Magnus, C. Dias, R. Segall, K. Grigaite Directorate-General for Internal Policies EN PE 659.643 - May 2021

Gender balance on the boards of significant banks

Background The promotion of equality between women and men in all its facets – in business, politics, and society as a whole – ranks high on the political agenda in the European Union. In March 2020, the Commission set out its 2020-2025 Gender Equality Strategy. In January 2021, the European Parliament adopted its related resolution, welcoming the positive measures contained in the strategy on the one hand, while also calling for additional actions and specific and binding targets on the other. Gender diversity is part of the overall good governance of any institution. This has been underlined by various international organisations, notably the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In the G20/OECD Principles on corporate governance, principle VI, on the responsibilities of the board, it is noted that “Countries may wish to consider measures such as voluntary targets, disclosure requirements, boardroom quotas, and private initiatives that enhance gender diversity on boards and in senior management”. A 2012 Commission proposal on gender balance on corporate boards is nevertheless pending in Council, with the latest developments dating from 2019 (see Council timeline and EP Legislative Train publication). Globally, governments, including EU Member States, have imposed (hard or soft) quotas for gender distribution in boards, with different scopes (applicable to all corporates and public sector companies or more limited to listed companies or financial market actors; see here for a summary analysis). In the specific context of economic, financial and monetary affairs, the European Parliament’s ECON committee, in the recent Banking Union annual report (draft INI report 2020/2122), regretted the failure to ensure full gender balance in EU financial institutions and bodies, reiterating this message given in the 2019 Banking Union annual report. Gender inequality 1 is not only visible at the level of EU institutions and bodies, but also at the level of supervised banks, whether small or large. Notably, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published a new EU-wide benchmarking report on diversity practices in credit institutions and investment firms in February 2020, analysing developments since its 2015 diversity benchmarking exercise. The EBA collected data from a large sample, namely from 834 credit institutions of different sizes and investment firms from all EU and European Economic Area (EEA) Member States. It found that – despite legal requirements (Article 88(2)(a) of Directive 2013/36/EU that aims to foster the diversity of management bodies) – a significant portion of credit institutions (more than 40%) had still not adopted a diversity policy, nor had not set targets for the under- represented gender. According to that EBA benchmark report, in the period under investigation, between 2015 and 2018, the representation of women in banks’ management bodies 2 somewhat improved overall, but remained at levels far from full gender balance. More specifically, the share of women in boards with a management

1 The OECD developed a database displaying selected indicators on gender inequalities in education, employment, entrepreneurship, health, development and Governance. The data cover OECD member countries, as well as partner economies including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South Africa. OECD initiatives on gender can be followed here. The European Institute for Gender Equality compiles statistics on gender (see here). EIGE dataset covers politics; public administration; judiciary; business and finance; social partners and non-governmental organisations; environment and climate change; media; education, science and research; and sports). Deloitte prepares an overarching global comparison of gender representation on boards (available here the 6th Edition). The International Labour Organisation also works on gender related issues (see here and especially a summary of an assessment made in 2019 regarding gender representation in boards based on a May 2019 report - “Women in Business and Management: The business case for change (Geneva, 2019)”). 2 Directive 2013/36/EU sets out in recital 56: “A management body should be understood to have executive and supervisory functions. The competence and structure of management bodies differ across Member States. In Member States where management bodies have a one-tier structure, a single board usually performs management and supervisory tasks. In Member States with a two-tier system, the supervisory function is performed by a separate supervisory board which has no executive functions and the executive function is performed by a separate management board which is responsible and accountable for the day-to-day management of the undertaking.”

2 PE 659.643 IPOL | Economic Governance Support Unit

function improved slightly from 13.6% in 2015 to 15.1% in 2018, while their share in management bodies with a supervisory function improved more strongly, from 18.9% in 2015 to 24.0% in 2018.

Gender balance on the boards of significant banks under the watch of the ECB In February 2021, Edouard Fernandez-Bollo, Member of the Supervisory Board of the ECB, delivered a speech in which he outlined what the ECB expects from banks’ leaders. Arguing that diversity within a management body – also in terms of experiences, values, abilities and backgrounds – is crucial to improving decision- making procedures, he noted that European banks have a lot of room for improvement in that area. Referring to the EBA benchmark report cited above, Fernandez-Bollo called the current gender distribution as simply not acceptable3 to the ECB as supervisor. Fernandez-Bollo pointed out that supervisors only have a ‘’second line role’’ when it comes to the concrete appointment of board level position in banks: first and foremost, it is the banks themselves that need to choose the right candidates, while the ECB’s role is limited to checking that there are no prudential grounds to question the bank’s choices. The ECB’s approval of candidates, known as the “fit and proper assessment” (here the related ECB guide), is complex as the ECB needs to apply 21 different national frameworks; it cannot apply just one harmonised set of criteria. The ECB is therefore working on an enhanced approach to fit and proper supervision, with a revised guide that shall help banks with the selection process, further clarifying the ECB’s related expectations. What Fernandez-Bollo did not reveal in his speech, though, is the exact gender balance on the boards of banks under the watch of the ECB, and its evolution over time. To our knowledge, that information is not yet publicly disclosed; corporate governance aspects are, for example, not part of the Supervisory banking statistics (a briefing paper previously commissioned for the ECON committee indicates that the share of male directors of banks directly supervised by the ECB has declined throughout the 2011-2018 period; see Bertay and Huizinga (2020)). To shed more light on this issue, we analysed publicly available information on the corporate governance structures of the largest (“significant”) banks headquartered in the euro-area under the direct watch of the ECB, as regularly disclosed in the banks’ annual reports. We determined the share of female directors 4 sitting on a bank’s board(s), for this purpose, and based on the empirical data available, we consider females to be the under-represented gender. In those countries where the corporate structures differentiate between the executive5 and supervisory6 board, we determined the respective shares separately for the year 2014 – the year in which the ECB took on its new role as banking supervisor – and for the year 2020, to get an understanding of the current situation and to see whether gender balance has improved over time. For a more nuanced picture, we differentiated between smaller and larger banks, and between banks with a one- tier board and hose with two-tier boards. For a more detailed description of the chosen methodology and the assumptions made, see Annex 1.

3 As an example of the positive impact of gender diversity, see Giovanni Cardillo, Enrico Onali and Giuseppe Torluccio, Does gender diversity on banks' boards matter? Evidence from public bailouts, Journal of Corporate Finance, January 2020. 4 All female board members are captured by the designation of “female directors”, irrespective of their executive or non-executive (supervisory) role. 5 For the purposes of this paper, an “executive” role corresponds to those having direct responsibilities in managing the company at the highest level. 6 For the purposes of this paper, a “supervisory” role is linked to the monitoring or oversight of the highest level of the executive function.

PE 659.643 3 Gender balance on the boards of significant banks

Detailed Results and Findings A detailed results table is presented in Annex 2. Share of female directors on executive boards of significant banks

• The share of female executive directors increased from 15.3% in 2014 to 27.4% in 2020 (+80%), as observed on Figure 1 (p. 1). • The relative increase is higher (+124%) for large banks, which in 2014 had a significantly lower share of female directors (11.8%) than smaller banks (17.7%); in 2020, the share of female directors is approximately the same in small and large banks.

Share of female directors on supervisory boards of significant banks • In general, supervisory boards were in 2014 more gender-balanced than executive boards (the data refers only to banks with a two-tier board system). • Over time, differences in the composition of executive boards versus that of supervisory boards have become smaller; in 2020, the share of female directors is quite similar on both types of boards. • The share of female directors sitting on supervisory boards rose from 22.3% in 2014 to 31.7% in 2020; the percentage increase (42%) is smaller than that for executive boards (+80%), primarily due to the higher starting point in 2014. • When comparing large and small banks, the differences in the composition of their supervisory boards were, and remained, rather negligible in quantitative terms. Figure 2: Share of female supervisory directors (2014 vs. 2020, in %)

33,2 35,0 31,7 30,1 30,0

23,0 25,0 22,3 21,6 20,0

15,0

10,0 % of female directors 5,0

0,0 Average share Large banks Small banks

2014 2020

Source: EGOV

One-tier versus two-tier boards

• When comparing boards with different corporate governance structures, one notices that one-tier boards are more gender balanced than the average of two-tier boards, both in 2014 and 2020. One-tier boards’ share of female executive directors increased by 68% vis-à-vis a 94% increase for two-tier boards. • Overall, for two-tier banks, there has been a 42% increase in the share of female directors in supervisory boards and 94% in executive ones.

4 PE 659.643 IPOL | Economic Governance Support Unit

Figure 3: Share on one-tier versus two-tier boards (in %)

35,0 31,6 31,7 30,0

23,5 25,0 22,3

20,0 18,8

15,0 12,1

10,0 % of female directors 5,0

0,0 Average share executive Average share executive Average share supervisory one-tier two-tier

2014 2020

Source: EGOV Country-specific analysis

• Figure 4 compares gender balance across countries with the exclusion of Slovenia, which only had two observations for one bank, both of which amounted to a 0% share of female directors on the boards. Ireland, Finland, Estonia, Luxembourg, Latvia, Portugal and Malta have four observations each; therefore, given their respective sample size of two banks only, their figures need to be considered with some reservations.

Figure 4: Gender balance in executive boards by country (in %)

60 50 50 41 40 37 36 35 34 33 33 32 31 27 30 25 24 23 22 23 22 20 19 20 19 20 15 16 16 13 12 11 10 10 % of female directors 10 6 6 5

0 IE IT FR FI EE LU BE NL ES LT PT EL MT CY AT DE

2014 2020

Source: EGOV

Disclaimer and copyright. The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. © European Union, 2021. Contact: [email protected] This document is available on the internet at: www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses

PE 659.643 5 Gender balance on the boards of significant banks

Annex 1: Methodology & Working assumptions Methodology The analysis refers to the population of 72 significant banks that were directly supervised by the ECB as individual entities both in 2014 and in 2020, and for which data on the composition of their boards is publicly available (see Annex 3 with the raw data). Each bank is observed both on the 31st of December of 2014 and 2020, resulting in 144 observations. The data on board composition was primarily retrieved from the annual financial statements of each bank. In the event that the annual financial statements were not yet available for the year 2020, or they did not disclose the required information, we used other publicly available secondary sources, such as the information on the banks’ websites. Board corporate governance structures differ across the Member States; banks in some countries have one- tier boards, while others have two-tier ones. The former type of board comprises both executive and non- executive (supervisory) directors, while the latter type formally separates between the different roles. One- tier boards are common in Belgium, Ireland, Greece, , Cyprus, Malta and Portugal. Two-tier boards, on the other hand, are common (or mandatory) in Germany, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Austria, and Slovenia. In Luxembourg, Finland and France, banks can either have one- or two-tier boards. The data was collected accordingly, differentiating between the type of board, or between the role of the respective directors on the board, also taking into account the size of the bank and the country in which a bank is headquartered.

Working assumptions Following a best-effort approach, these assumptions were made when collecting data for the analysis: • General assumptions: o If a board member was appointed to the board throughout the year, even if not yet approved by the ECB at the relevant observation date, (s)he was included as a member; o All voting members appointed to a supervisory board were counted, including, for instance, employee representatives; o Non-voting members appointed to a supervisory board were not counted; o When there was no 2020 annual report available yet, we either relied on the most recent information available on a bank’s website (therefore, likely information from early 2021) or on a report from the most recently published quarterly report (2020Q2 or 2020Q3); o Executive Committee members, where such a committee exists, were not counted as part of an executive board, with the exception of ABN AMRO Bank N.V 7. Moreover, all Executive Board members are also members of the Executive Committee and members of both the Board and the Committee are listed together in the bank’s annual reports; o If a board member deceased during the year under observation, (s)he was not counted as a board member; o Board secretaries were not counted as board members; o In some instances, banks’ names slightly changed from 2014 to 2020, but such banks were kept in the sample as long as their LEI code remained the same.

• Country-specific assumptions:

7 In ABN AMRO Bank N.V., the Executive Committee is part of the bank’s management structure and is consulted by the Executive Board regarding the strategic direction of the bank, the general course and continuity of business, and “setting ABN AMRO’s mission, vision, strategy, risk appetite, corporate standards and values, risk framework, main policies, budgets, financial and non- financial targets, and for the realisation thereof.” (ABN AMRO Bank N.V. Annual Report 2020)

6 PE 659.643 IPOL | Economic Governance Support Unit

o Italy: . Alternate auditors present in supervisory boards were counted as members, but a relevant auditing company and the person within the organisation responsible for preparing financial reports were not counted, despite being listed within the supervisory board; . changed its corporate structure during the period under observation, so it is presented as one-tier in 2020 and two-tier in 2014. o Germany: . Deputy supervisory board members were not counted as members.

Annex 2: Results table 2014 2020 2014-2020 Sample Female Sample Female Percentag Percentage size share (%) size share (%) e change difference (%) (%) Executive Board 72 15,3 72 27,4 80 12 Executive Board; Large 30 11,8 30 26,4 124 15 banks Executive Board; Small 42 17,7 42 28,2 59 10 banks Executive Board; One-tier 34 18,8 35 31,6 68 13 banks Executive Board; Two-tier 38 12,1 37 23,5 94 11 banks Supervisory Board 38 22,3 37 31,7 42 9 Supervisory Board; Large 20 23,0 19 33,2 45 10 banks Supervisory Board; Small 18 21,6 18 30,1 39 8 banks Note: Percentage change = (Female share (2020) - Female share (2014)) / Female share (2014); Percentage difference = Female share (2020) - Female share (2014).

PE 659.643 7 Gender balance on the boards of significant banks

Annex 3: Raw data table

Executive Board Supervisory Board Country Bank's Name Year Number of Female Number of Share of Female Number of Female Number of Share of Female Directors Directors Directors (%) Directors Directors Directors (%) Belgium AXA Bank Belgium SA ; AXA Bank Belgium NV 2014 2 12 16,7 One-tier board Belgium AXA Bank Belgium SA ; AXA Bank Belgium NV 2020 1 13 7,7 One-tier board Belgium Belfius Banque SA ; Belfius Bank NV ; Belfius Bank SA 2014 3 15 20,0 One-tier board Belgium Belfius Banque SA ; Belfius Bank NV ; Belfius Bank SA 2020 6 16 37,5 One-tier board Belgium KBC Group NV 2014 4 18 22,2 One-tier board Belgium KBC Group NV 2020 6 16 37,5 One-tier board Belgium The Bank of New York Mellon SA 2014 3 13 23,1 One-tier board Belgium The Bank of New York Mellon SA 2020 4 8 50,0 One-tier board Germany Aareal Bank AG 2014 1 4 25,0 1 12 8,3 Germany Aareal Bank AG 2020 2 5 40,0 5 12 41,7 Germany Bayerische Landesbank 2014 0 6 0,0 1 11 9,1 Germany Bayerische Landesbank 2020 0 5 0,0 2 11 18,2 Germany Aktiengesellschaft 2014 0 7 0,0 6 20 30,0 Germany COMMERZBANK Aktiengesellschaft 2020 2 6 33,3 8 21 38,1 Germany DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale 2014 0 4 0,0 2 25 8,0 Germany DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale 2020 1 5 20,0 4 27 14,8 Germany Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG 2014 0 5 0,0 5 20 25,0 Germany Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG 2020 1 5 20,0 4 20 20,0 Germany AG 2014 0 8 0,0 7 20 35,0 Germany Deutsche Bank AG 2020 1 10 10,0 6 21 28,6 Germany Deutsche Pfandbriefbank AG 2014 0 5 0,0 3 9 33,3 Germany Deutsche Pfandbriefbank AG 2020 0 4 0,0 2 9 22,2 Germany DZ BANK AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank 2014 0 7 0,0 1 20 5,0 Germany DZ BANK AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank 2020 1 8 12,5 5 20 25,0 Germany HASPA Finanzholding 2014 1 5 20,0 1 16 6,3 Germany HASPA Finanzholding 2020 0 5 0,0 3 16 18,8 Germany Landesbank Baden-Württemberg 2014 0 7 0,0 2 21 9,5 Germany Landesbank Baden-Württemberg 2020 0 5 0,0 7 21 33,3 Germany Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale 2014 0 6 0,0 7 43 16,3 Germany Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale 2020 0 5 0,0 6 28 21,4 Germany Münchener Hypothekenbank eG 2014 0 3 0,0 0 9 0,0 Germany Münchener Hypothekenbank eG 2020 0 2 0,0 2 12 16,7 Germany Norddeutsche Landesbank -Girozentrale- 2014 1 6 16,7 5 18 27,8 Germany Norddeutsche Landesbank -Girozentrale- 2020 0 5 0,0 5 18 27,8 Estonia AS SEB Pank 2014 2 6 33,3 0 6 0,0

8 PE 659.643 IPOL | Economic Governance Support Unit

Executive Board Supervisory Board Country Bank's Name Year Number of Female Number of Share of Female Number of Female Number of Share of Female Directors Directors Directors (%) Directors Directors Directors (%) Estonia AS SEB Pank 2020 1 5 20,0 2 6 33,3 Estonia AS 2014 1 6 16,7 3 5 60,0 Estonia Swedbank AS 2020 4 8 50,0 1 7 14,3 Ireland AIB Group plc 2014 1 10 10,0 One-tier board Ireland AIB Group plc 2020 5 10 50,0 One-tier board Ireland Ulster Bank Ireland Designated Activity Company 2014 2 10 20,0 One-tier board Ireland Ulster Bank Ireland Designated Activity Company 2020 3 6 50,0 One-tier board Greece AE 2014 2 16 12,5 One-tier board Greece Alpha Bank AE 2020 2 13 15,4 One-tier board Greece Services and Holdings S.A. 2014 1 12 8,3 One-tier board Greece Eurobank Ergasias Services and Holdings S.A. 2020 4 14 28,6 One-tier board Greece S.A. 2014 3 12 25,0 One-tier board Greece National Bank of Greece S.A. 2020 4 13 30,8 One-tier board Greece Piraeus Financial Holdings S.A. Greece 2014 3 15 20,0 One-tier board Greece Piraeus Financial Holdings S.A. Greece 2020 2 13 15,4 One-tier board Spain Banco Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A 2014 3 14 21,4 One-tier board Spain Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. 2020 5 15 33,3 One-tier board Spain Banco de Crédito Social Cooperativo, S.A. 2014 2 11 18,2 One-tier board Spain Banco de Crédito Social Cooperativo, S.A. 2020 2 10 20,0 One-tier board Spain Banco de Sabadell, S.A. 2014 1 14 7,1 One-tier board Spain Banco de Sabadell, S.A. 2020 4 15 26,7 One-tier board Spain , S.A. 2014 5 15 33,3 One-tier board Spain Banco Santander, S.A. 2020 6 15 40,0 One-tier board Spain , S.A. 2014 2 10 20,0 One-tier board Spain Bankinter, S.A. 2020 4 11 36,4 One-tier board Spain Kutxabank, S.A. 2014 3 15 20,0 One-tier board Spain Kutxabank, S.A. 2020 4 15 26,7 One-tier board Spain Liberbank, S.A. 2014 2 12 16,7 One-tier board Spain Liberbank, S.A. 2020 3 11 27,3 One-tier board Spain Unicaja Banco, S.A. 2014 2 12 16,7 One-tier board Spain Unicaja Banco, S.A. 2020 5 12 41,7 One-tier board France BNP Paribas S.A. 2014 2 16 12,5 One-tier board France BNP Paribas S.A. 2020 6 14 42,9 One-tier board France BPCE S.A. 2014 1 5 20,0 4 17 23,5 France BPCE S.A. 2020 2 5 40,0 7 19 36,8 France Bpifrance S.A. (Banque Publique d’Investissement) 2014 5 12 41,7 One-tier board France Bpifrance S.A. (Banque Publique d’Investissement) 2020 8 15 53,3 One-tier board

PE 659.643 9 Gender balance on the boards of significant banks

Executive Board Supervisory Board Country Bank's Name Year Number of Female Number of Share of Female Number of Female Number of Share of Female Directors Directors Directors (%) Directors Directors Directors (%) France C.R.H. - Caisse de Refinancement de l’Habitat 2014 3 10 30,0 One-tier board France C.R.H. - Caisse de Refinancement de l’Habitat 2020 3 8 37,5 One-tier board France Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel 2014 0 17 0,0 One-tier board France Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel 2020 1 16 6,3 One-tier board France Crédit Agricole S.A. 2014 6 24 25,0 One-tier board France Crédit Agricole S.A. 2020 10 21 47,6 One-tier board France HSBC Continental Europe 2014 4 18 22,2 One-tier board France HSBC Continental Europe 2020 7 15 46,7 One-tier board France 2014 0 2 0,0 7 15 46,7 France La Banque Postale 2020 1 4 25,0 5 16 31,3 France SFIL S.A. 2014 8 15 53,3 One-tier board France SFIL S.A. 2020 7 14 50,0 One-tier board France Société Générale S.A. 2014 2 13 15,4 6 14 42,9 France Société Générale S.A. 2020 1 5 20,0 6 14 42,9 Italy S.p.A. - Cassa di Risparmio di Genova e Imperia 2014 3 15 20,0 1 3 33,3 Italy Banca Carige S.p.A. - Cassa di Risparmio di Genova e Imperia 2020 4 9 44,4 1 3 33,3 Italy BANCA MONTE DEI PASCHI DI SIENA S.p.A. 2014 2 12 16,7 0 3 0,0 Italy BANCA MONTE DEI PASCHI DI SIENA S.p.A. 2020 7 15 46,7 1 3 33,3 Italy Banca Popolare di Sondrio, Società Cooperativa per Azioni 2014 3 16 18,8 1 3 33,3 Italy Banca Popolare di Sondrio, Società Cooperativa per Azioni 2020 6 15 40,0 1 3 33,3 Italy BPER Banca S.p.A. 2014 7 18 38,9 0 7 0,0 Italy BPER Banca S.p.A. 2020 8 15 53,3 1 3 33,3 Italy Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. 2014 2 10 20,0 5 19 26,3 Italy Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. 2020 5 14 35,7 One-tier board Italy Mediobanca - Banca di Credito Finanziario S.p.A. 2014 5 18 27,8 1 3 33,3 Italy Mediobanca - Banca di Credito Finanziario S.p.A. 2020 6 15 40,0 1 3 33,3 Italy S.p.A. 2014 4 20 20,0 1 5 20,0 Italy UniCredit S.p.A. 2020 4 15 26,7 2 5 40,0 Cyprus Holdings Public Limited Company 2014 0 10 0,0 One-tier board Cyprus Bank of Cyprus Holdings Public Limited Company 2020 4 11 36,4 One-tier board Cyprus Public Company Limited 2014 2 9 22,2 One-tier board Cyprus Hellenic Bank Public Company Limited 2020 1 11 9,1 One-tier board Cyprus RCB Bank LTD 2014 1 8 12,5 One-tier board Cyprus RCB Bank LTD 2020 1 9 11,1 One-tier board Latvia AS "SEB banka" 2014 1 5 20,0 0 5 0,0 Latvia AS "SEB banka" 2020 1 6 16,7 2 6 33,3 Latvia "Swedbank" AS 2014 1 5 20,0 3 5 60,0

10 PE 659.643 IPOL | Economic Governance Support Unit

Executive Board Supervisory Board Country Bank's Name Year Number of Female Number of Share of Female Number of Female Number of Share of Female Directors Directors Directors (%) Directors Directors Directors (%) Latvia "Swedbank" AS 2020 3 8 37,5 1 5 20,0 Luxembourg Banque et Caisse d’Epargne de l’Etat, Luxembourg 2014 1 5 20,0 2 11 18,2 Luxembourg Banque et Caisse d’Epargne de l’Etat, Luxembourg 2020 2 5 40,0 4 10 40,0 Luxembourg Precision Capital S.A. (KLB/Quintet) 2014 2 18 11,1 One-tier board Luxembourg Precision Capital S.A. (KLB/Quintet) 2020 3 11 27,3 One-tier board Malta Bank of Valletta plc 2014 0 9 0,0 One-tier board Malta Bank of Valletta plc 2020 2 11 18,2 One-tier board Malta HSBC Bank Malta p.l.c. 2014 1 9 11,1 One-tier board Malta HSBC Bank Malta p.l.c. 2020 2 8 25,0 One-tier board The Netherlands ABN AMRO Bank N.V. 2014 1 7 14,3 3 8 37,5 The Netherlands ABN AMRO Bank N.V. 2020 2 8 25,0 3 8 37,5 The Netherlands BNG Bank N.V. 2014 0 3 0,0 4 10 40,0 The Netherlands BNG Bank N.V. 2020 1 3 33,3 3 7 42,9 The Netherlands Coöperatieve U.A. 2014 0 6 0,0 0 7 0,0 The Netherlands Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A. 2020 4 9 44,4 3 8 37,5 The Netherlands ING Groep N.V. 2014 0 3 0,0 2 8 25,0 The Netherlands ING Groep N.V. 2020 2 6 33,3 3 9 33,3 The Netherlands Nederlandse Waterschapsbank N.V. 2014 1 3 33,3 2 6 33,3 The Netherlands Nederlandse Waterschapsbank N.V. 2020 1 4 25,0 4 7 57,1 Austria Bank AG 2014 0 6 0,0 5 15 33,3 Austria Erste Group Bank AG 2020 1 7 14,3 7 21 33,3 Austria Raiffeisen Bank International AG 2014 0 6 0,0 2 16 12,5 Austria Raiffeisen Bank International AG 2020 0 6 0,0 5 18 27,8 Austria Raiffeisenbankengruppe OÖ Verbund eGen 2014 1 6 16,7 4 20 20,0 Austria Raiffeisenbankengruppe OÖ Verbund eGen 2020 1 5 20,0 8 20 40,0 Portugal Banco Comercial Português, SA 2014 2 20 10,0 One-tier board Portugal Banco Comercial Português, SA 2020 4 17 23,5 One-tier board Portugal Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA 2014 2 13 15,4 One-tier board Portugal Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA 2020 4 16 25,0 One-tier board Slovenia Nova Ljubljanska Banka d.d. Ljubljana 2014 0 4 0,0 1 6 16,7 Slovenia Nova Ljubljanska Banka d.d. Ljubljana 2020 0 4 0,0 4 11 36,4 Finland Bank Abp 2014 5 12 41,7 One-tier board Finland Nordea Bank Abp 2020 5 14 35,7 One-tier board Finland OP Osuuskunta 2014 3 12 25,0 6 32 18,8 Finland OP Osuuskunta 2020 4 11 36,4 14 33 42,4

PE 659.643 11