DOCSLIB.ORG

AU Coversheet Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AU Coversheet Template Coversheet This is the accepted manuscript (post-print version) of the article. Contentwise, the post-print version is identical to the final published version, but there may be differences in typography and layout. How to cite this publication Please cite the final published version: Birkmose, H. S. (2018). Forcing Shareholder Engagement: Theoretical Underpinning and Political Ambitions. European Business Law Review, 29(4), 613-642. Publication metadata Title: Forcing Shareholder Engagement: Theoretical Underpinning and Political Ambitions Author(s): Birkmose, H. S. Journal: European Business Law Review, 29(4), 613-642 DOI/Link: http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journal s&id=EULR2018024 Document version: Accepted manuscript (post-print) General Rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. This coversheet template is made available by AU Library Version 1.0, October 2016 Forcing Shareholder Engagement – Theoretical Underpinning and Political Ambitions1 Hanne S. Birkmose* Abstract This paper explores the post-crisis debate on shareholder engagement and argues that the debate and subsequent legislative initiatives aimed at increasing shareholder engagement and accountability seem to be moving away from the traditional corporate governance basis. While corporate governance theory may explain the need for shareholders to balance management powers, it does not support that shareholders have an obligation to engage in investee companies. Neither do we find that the ownership rhetoric supports any duties for shareholders. Finally, we examine elements of stakeholder theory and public policy theory. While these theories emphasise that companies should include other interests than shareholders’ financial interests, they do not support a stronger shareholder role in that respect. Thus, the paper concludes that the post-crisis debate on shareholder engagement should be seen as the result of a strong political agenda and that the theoretical basis for pushing shareholder engagement further is weak. I. Introduction The rights and duties of shareholders have increasingly been included in the European debate on how to ensure good corporate governance, particularly in listed companies.2 The 2008-2009 financial crisis added urgency to the debate as it revealed a lack of critical oversight by shareholders, and in particular by institutional investors. The response of the EU Commission, as well as the Member States, has been to promote legislative initiatives aimed at increasing shareholder engagement and accountability.3 1 This work was initiated during a research visit to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, London, which was made possible by Carlsbergfondet, Julie von Müllen’s Fond and Axel H’s Rejselegat. The work was carried out as part of the research project on ‘Shareholders’ Duties’, which has received financial support from the Danish Council for Independent Research. The author would like to thank all the above for their financial support. The work is also carried out as part of the research project ‘Social interest and Corporate Governance balance: shareholders' duties and managers' duties’, which is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness. The author would like to thank Professor Mathias Siems, Durham University, Senior Lecturer Konstantinos Sergakis, University of Glasgow, Professor Alfonso Martínez-Echevarría, University CEU San Pablo, Madrid, and my colleagues Professor Mette Neville, Professor Karsten Engsig Sørensen, and Professor Emeritus Paul Krüger Andersen, Aarhus University, for their valuable input. * Professor, Department of Law, Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University. 2 Peter Butler & Simon Wong, Recent Trends in Institutional Investor Responsibilities and Stewardship 16 (2) Pensions: An international Journal 80 (2011). 3 The EU Commission set out a number of initiatives in its ‘2012 Action Plan’; see Action Plan: European Company Law and Corporate Governance - A modern legal framework for more engaged shareholders and sustainable companies, sections 2.4 and 3 (COM(2012) 740 final). Most recently the Shareholder Rights Directive was amended; see Directive (EU) 2017/828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 amending Directive 2007/36/EC as regards the encouragement of long-term shareholder engagement (hereinafter SRD II). In the UK the Stewardship Code has been introduced to enhance the quality of engagement between institutional investors and companies; see http://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Corporate-Governance/UK-Stewardship-Code- These initiatives to promote shareholder engagement are at the core of contemporary corporate governance theory, where shareholders are relied on to monitor and control the boards of the companies they invest in. While shareholder engagement is still considered a cornerstone in European corporate governance, the post-crisis critique of shareholder passivity has introduced new aspects to the discussion of how to ensure good governance. First, a general feature seems to be that shareholders are often referred to as being ‘owners’ or as having a certain responsibility to engage with their investee companies seemingly based on the concept of ownership. Second, references to sustainable engagement and the long-term viability of companies may suggest that shareholder engagement is not only about the shareholders’ private interests, but engagement rests on the premise that shareholders should include public interests and public accountability.4 The discussion on shareholder engagement and shareholder accountability is undoubtedly highly political, as national and supranational regulators are under pressure to react to the financial markets’ collapse during the financial crisis and the malpractices of market participants including the shareholders. Therefore, it is to be expected that criticisms of shareholder passivity will result in more national and supranational legal activism. However, it is important that legislators should consider the theoretical basis for shareholder engagement, first to ensure the legitimacy of such legislation and second to understand the mechanisms of engagement. If the rhetoric and the conceptual understanding of the role of shareholders are flawed, there will be a risk that the regulatory response will be based on mistaken premises and the resulting legislation will be equally flawed. The aim of this paper is to examine three lines of argument that have been made to support initiatives to promote shareholder engagement in company law and to discuss the legitimacy of shareholder engagement. Undoubtedly, other arguments can be made as well, but as the Commission has chosen to promote shareholder engagement through the Shareholder Rights Directive and thereby the existing company law framework, the paper will not include arguments found outside the company law sphere.5 The starting point of this paper is the traditional argument for shareholder engagement in corporate governance theory. The corporate governance argument presents a dilemma though. On the one hand, the EU Commission sees shareholder engagement as a cornerstone of the corporate governance model for listed companies.6 It has said that the European corporate governance framework ‘is built on the assumption that shareholders engage with companies and hold the management to account for its performance.’7 On the other hand, this trust in shareholders was shaken during the financial crisis and the Commission stated that the passivity of shareholders September-2012.aspx. A stewardship code has also been published in Denmark; see https://corporategovernance.dk/sites/default/files/erst_247_opsaetning_af_anbefalinger_for_aktivt_ejerskab_uk_2k8.pd f. 4 Such references are found at both EU level and Member State level; see SRD II, preamble 16. In relation to the UK stewardship discussion, see Iris Chiu, Turning Institutional Investors into “Stewards”: Exploring the Meaning and Objectives of “Stewardship” 66 Current Legal Problems 3 (2013). 5 Institutional Investors’ fiduciary duties to their beneficiaries could possibly be a credible argument as well. This may also explain why the regulatory initiatives tend to focus on institutional investors. 6 The 2012 Action Plan, section 3. 7 The EU Corporate Governance Framework, Green Paper, (COM(2011) 164 final), introductory remarks, (hereinafter, the ‘2011 Green Paper’). raised ‘questions about the effectiveness of corporate governance rules based on the presumption of effective control by shareholders.’8 Still, despite the criticism of the reliance on shareholders, the adoption of the SRD II shows that the Commission continues to see shareholders as a key to promote good corporate governance. Moreover, not only does the Commission continue to rely on the same corporate governance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Doing Business in the Federal Republic of Germany
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 3 Number 2 Fall Article 4 May 2020 Doing Business in the Federal Republic of Germany Georg Kutschelis Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation Georg Kutschelis, Doing Business in the Federal Republic of Germany, 3 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 197 (1973). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. DOING BUSINESS IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY* GEORG KUTSCHELIS** I. INTRODUCTION II. PRELIMINARY FORMALITIES A. Residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis) B. Labor permit (Arbeitserlaubnis) C. Registration of business (Gewerbeanmeldung) D. Registration of foreign corporate bodies III. LEGAL ORGANIZATION OF A BUSINESS A. Statutory background B. Some peculiarities of German commercial law 1. Kinds of merchants 2. Commercial register 3. Commercial name (Firma) 4. Commercial agency C. Criteria of companies 1. Capacity to hold legal rights (Rechtsfaehigkeit) 2. The dichotomy of company and association 3. Internal and external companies 4. Person-companies and capital-companies 5. Ownership of company assets D. Kinds of Companies 1. Private law company (Gesellschaft buergerlichen- Rechts) 2. Partnership (Offene Handelsgesellschaft) 3. Limited partnership (Kommanditgesellschaft) 4. Silent partnership (Stille Gesellschaft) 5. Stock corporation (Aktiengesellschaft) 6. Partnership limited by shares (Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktien) 7. Limited liability company (Gesellschaft mit besch- raenkterHaftung) 8. Limited liability company and partner (GmbH & Co KG) 9.
    [Show full text]
  • German Corporate Governance Regulation Between Market and Multilevel Governance
    On the Road to Anglo-Saxon Capitalism? German Corporate Governance Regulation between Market and Multilevel Governance Susanne Lütz and Dagmar Eberle Paper prepared for the 4th ECPR Conference, Pisa, Italy, September 6th – 8th, 2007 Section on Regulation and Governance Contact: Prof. Susanne Lütz Dagmar Eberle Open University in Hagen (FernUniversität) Political Regulation and Governance Universitätsstrasse 41 58084 Hagen Germany E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Financial internationalization and European regulatory harmonization put the German cor- porate governance regime under pressure to move towards a market-oriented, Anglo-Saxon model. While International Political Economy approaches expect Anglo-Saxon standards to spread across national borders, Comparative Political Economy predicts persistent diversity. In our paper, we trace the patterns and driving forces of change in two areas of corporate governance regulation, namely internal governance and accounting. In accounting, proc- esses of multilevel coordination entailed a high degree of convergence towards Anglo- Saxon standards and institutions. A much greater stability of the domestic institutional framework can be seen in the case of internal governance. While political economy ap- proaches offer important insights for analyzing these changes, both fail to account for the different patterns of convergence and divergence in the two cases. Therefore, we argue in favor of a policy analysis perspective to capture the sectorally distinct interplay of forces that shape the processes of regulatory change. 1. Introduction 1 Whether distinct national “varieties of capitalism” will survive in an increasingly globaliz- ing economy has become one of the most hotly debated issues in Comparative Political Economy since the early 1990s.
    [Show full text]
  • ILF WP151.Pdf
    Melanie Döge T h e F i n a n c i a l O b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e S h a r e h o l d e r W O R K I N G P A P E R No 151 Melanie Döge The Financial Obligations of the Shareholder Institute for Law and Finance WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 151/2017 The Financial Obligations of the Shareholder Rechtsanwältin Dr. Melanie Döge* I. Introductory Remarks The vast theme “Financial obligations of the shareholder” requires some restrictions. This means that a comparative overview and comparison with other legislatures will not be presented in the following; my remarks are based on and confined to German corporate law. While it is true that basic traits of our European company law systems are commonly shared (as regards financial obligations of the shareholders, in particular due to the 2nd Company Law Directive of the EU),1 many differences remain. Hence it is left to the foreign reader to find similarities or differences in her or his own system with what follows here. A second restriction has to be made and mentioned. The chapter does not deal with the well-known debate about the usefulness of the traditional European system of a nominal capital which of course has implications for the financial duties of shareholders as regards the formation of a company; the raising of fresh capital; and for distribution of profits and assets to the shareholders (“capital maintenance”). The general debate about this has stalled meanwhile as the results of the various studies on the pros and cons of the different systems were inconclusive.2 An interesting side issue in this debate is the usefulness of a minimum capital requirement for smaller corporations which do not fall under the provisions of the 2nd Company Law Directive.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Governance in Germany - Konn Te System and Recent Developments Nich T Gefu Nden Theodor Baums* Werd En
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main Fehl er! Verw eisq uell e Corporate Governance in Germany - konn te System and Recent Developments nich t gefu nden Theodor Baums* werd en. I. Introduction II. The Empirical Background 1. Number of Firms 2. Structure of Ownership a) Private households b) Firms c) Foreign investors d) Banks e) Insurances; pension funds 3. An example: Distribution of ownership in Siemens Aktiengesellschaft III. The Corporate Governance Structure 1. The Legal Framework 2. The Stock Corporation as a Legal Entity 3. The Company Organs a) The formal regulation b) Practical example: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft 4. The Practice of Internal Monitoring a) The role of the banks b) Performance of supervisory boards Fehl er! Verw eisq uell e 5. External monitoring konn te a) External vs. internal monitoring nich t gefu b) Hostile takeovers nden werd en. IV. The Present Debate and Ongoing Work 1. "Finanzplatz Deutschland" 2. The Hearing of the Committee on Economic Affairs on "Power of Financial Institutions", of Dec. 8, 1993 3. The Law of Groups of Firms I. Introduction The following descriptive overview of the German corporate governance system and the current debate is structured as follows. Part II will give some information on the empirical background. Part III will describe the formal legal setting as well as actual practices in some key areas. Part IV will then deal with some issues of the current debate. II. The Empirical Background 1. Number of firms Obtaining new reliable data on all firms in reunified Germany is not yet possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Piercing the Corporate Veil: Historical, Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives
    4. TAN WANG HOFMANN- FINAL CHECK (005) (1) (DO NOT DELETE) 2/20/2019 2:51 PM PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL: HISTORICAL, THEORETICAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES Tan Cheng-Han, Jiangyu Wang, Christian Hofmann, E W Barker Centre for Law and Business, National University of Singapore Introduction ............................................................................................. 140 Historical Context ................................................................................... 141 Veil Piercing – A Theoretical Analysis .................................................. 150 Veil Piercing – A Comparative Analysis ................................................ 157 England and Singapore ................................................................ 158 United States ................................................................................ 160 Germany ...................................................................................... 170 Veil-piercing in the context of the smaller German company type, the GmbH .............................................................. 171 Cases of undercapitalization and liability for “annihilating interference” .................................................................. 172 Principles of German law of capital maintenance ................ 173 The Trihotel judgment of the Federal High Court (BGH) ... 175 The GAMMA judgment of the BGH ................................... 178 Veil-piercing for commingling of corporate and private assets ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eec Company Law Harmonization and Worker Participation
    ARTICLE EEC COMPANY LAW HARMONIZATION AND WORKER PARTICIPATION PROFESSOR DR. WALTER KOLVENBACH* SYNOPSIS The company law harmonization program of the European Com- munity has as its principal components the coordination, safeguarding, protection and equivalence necessary to protect shareholders, creditors, customers, potential investors and, last, but not least, the employees of companies in the Member States. The goals are to remove obstacles to the establishment of businesses by Common Market citizens within the entire Community and to harmonize the company laws of the Member States. While the removal of obstacles has proven to be uncomplicated, the second goal of harmonization is politically sensitive as a result of the different degrees of employee participation that exist in the Mem- ber States. While some Member States do not have any scheme for employee participation at all, others have extensive legislation in this area. Organizations of employers and employees take different views not only as to the extent of harmonization, but also as to the methods and means to achieve such harmonization. These differences became apparent when the Commission pro- posed harmonization of company laws involving employee participation systems. Out of the original ten company law directives envisaged, seven have been enacted by the Council of Ministers because they har- monize primarily technical aspects of company law. The remaining three directives, the Fifth Company Law Directive, the Ninth Com- * Dr. Jur. 1949, University of Cologne; former President of the European Com- pany Lawyers Association; former Chairman of the Legal Committee of the German Chemical Association; former Chairman of the Section on General Practice of the In- ternational Bar Association; member of the German Bar; Lecturer of Law, University of Cologne and University of Bonn; Honorary Professor of Law 1988, University of Cologne; former General Counsel to Henkel, KGaA, D~isseldorf; Of Counsel with Heuking, Kiihn, Herold, Kunz and Partner, Diusseldorf.
    [Show full text]
  • Groups of Companies in Swedish Law
    Groups of Companies In Swedish Law Dotevall, Rolf Published in: Journal of Civil & Legal Science 2018 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Dotevall, R. (2018). Groups of Companies In Swedish Law. Journal of Civil & Legal Science, 7(2). Total number of authors: 1 Creative Commons License: Other General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 & ivil Leg C al f S o c l Dotevall, J Civil Legal Sci 2018, 7:2 i a e n n r c e u DOI: 10.4172/2169-0170.1000247 s o J Journal of Civil & Legal Sciences ISSN: 2169-0170 Review Article Open Access Groups of Companies in Swedish Law Rolf Dotevall* Department of Law, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Sweden Abstract Third party often got the impression that a company group is not only a commercial entity but also a legal personality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Free Movement of Companies1
    The Free Movement of Companies1 The ‘real seat doctrine’ is dead – Long live the ‘incorporation state doctrine’! Søren Friis Hansen In its decision of 5th November 2002, in Case C-208/00 Überseering BV v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH [2002] ECR I-9919, and its decision of September 30th 2003, in Case C-167/01 Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art ltd [not yet reported] the European Court of Justice has definitively rejected the ‘real seat’ doctrine (sometimes known as the ‘head office’ doctrine, or ‘Sitztheorie’ in German) as a means for determining the nationality of a company, in respect of companies which are established in accordance with the laws of a Member State, and whose registered office, head office or main place of business are situated within the European Union. The Court has therefore confirmed its decision of 9th March 1999 in Case C-212/97 Centros Ltd v Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen [1999] I-1459. The Centros judgment has been one of the most debated decisions of the European Court ever. In its decision of 13th March 2003, the German Federal Supreme Court has changed its practice, so that the incorporation state doctrine is now regarded as applicable in German private international law for determining the nationality of a company. These decisions are of great practical importance for European Companies. It is unlikely that thousands of foreign incorporations will be used as shells for commercial undertakings, which have their head offices in Denmark. However, a number of undertakings will make use of the new opportunities in the EU, following the Centros, Überseering, and Inspire Art cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Employee Participation Under German Company Law Frank Wooldridge
    19168 Amicus 87 Autumn text.qxd:Text 10/11/11 13:41 Page 31 Employee participation under German company law Frank Wooldridge n the nineteenth century certain German Christian and THE WORKS COUNCILS ACTS OF 1952 AND liberal writers on political theory advocated cooperation 1972 THE DRITTELBETEILIGUNGSGESETZ Ibetween the owners of capital and their employees in (DRITTEL BG) OF 2004 German business entities. The first statutory provision to The Betreibsverfassungsgesetz (Works Councils Act) in its be influenced by the concept of the creation of committees 1972 version contained provisions in paragraphs 87 et seq of workers exercising particular functions was enacted in thereof which gave the works council certain rights of codetermination which were binding on the employers, July 1891. A similar arrangement was provided for and and which were applicable to companies that were not made compulsory by the Gesetz über den väterlandische operating in the coal, iron and steel industries. The Hulfsdienst (law governing the national emergency service) relevant rights had to be exercised at the level of the of December 5, 1916. A decree was enacted on December supervisory board: this gave rise to criticisms on the 12, 1918 concerning wage agreements, the use of commit - ground that the supervisory board has limited functions tees of ordinary and white collar workers, and the arbitra - and may not always be adequately provided with staff. tion of industrial disputes (Die Verordung über Tarifvertrage Paragraphs 76 and 77 of the Works Council Act in its Arbeiter und Angestelltenauschüsse, und Schichtung von 1952 and 1972 versions required one third of the members Arbeitstreitigkeiten).
    [Show full text]
  • The Nordic Corporate Governance Model
    PER LEKVALL (ED.) THE NORDIC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE MODEL WITH COMMENT BY RONALD J. GILSON SNS FÖRLAG »This is an important and influential book for three reasons. First, Nordic countries are important and currently upheld as a model for good corporate governance around the world. Second, the book is an exceptionally careful and thorough analysis of their governance arrangements. It combines an overview of the common features of Nordic countries’ governance with individual country details of their differences. Third, it provides real insights into the determinants of successful corporate governance. It points to three key components: diversity of ownership patterns including controlling shareholdings, independent boards, and strong protection of minority investor interests. The book deserves to be widely read and carefully studied by anyone interested in the design of corporate governance systems.« Colin Mayer, Peter Moores Professor of Management Studies, Said Business School, University of Oxford THE NORDIC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE M ODE L PER LEKVALL (ed.) The Nordic Corporate Governance Model with comment by RONALD J. GILSON and contributions by national experts: D E N M A R K : Jesper Lau Hansen and Carsten Lønfeldt F I N L A N D : Manne Airaksinen, Tom Berglund and Tom von Weymarn N O R W A Y : Gudmund Knudsen and Harald Norvik S W E D E N : Rolf Skog and Erik Sjöman S N S F Ö R L A G SNS Förlag Box 5629 SE-114 86 Stockholm Telephone: +46 8 507 025 00 [email protected] www.sns.se SNS – Centre for Business and Policy Studies – is a non-partisan and independent non-profit organisation that contributes to decision makers in politics, public administration and business being able to make well-informed decisions based on science and factual analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles the Development of German Corporate Law Until 1990
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by SOAS Research Online Articles The Development of German Corporate Law Until 1990: An Historical Reappraisal ∗ By Peter Muchlinski A. Introduction The development of modern corporate law can be located in four “origin” legal systems: France, England, Germany and the United States (specifically in leading State Jurisdictions such as New York, New Jersey and Delaware). These systems are often segregated between an Anglo-American “outsider” system of corporate law and governance and the 1 Continental “insider” system. This has its political economy parallel in the “Varieties of Capitalism” literature, which separates the major capitalist economies into “Liberal Market Economies”, such as the UK and the USA, and “Co-ordinated Market Economies”, such as 2 Germany. These distinctions concentrate, in particular, on whether the system of corporate finance is based on open stock markets and widely dispersed “outsider” shareholding, as in the Anglo-American model, or on finance carried out by “insider” ∗* Peter Muchlinski is a Professor at The School of Law, SOAS, University of London. Email: [email protected]. This paper is part of a wider project on the globalization of corporate law undertaken by the author in conjunction with his colleagues at SOAS – Nick Foster, Sanzhu Zhu and Scott Newton – as represented by our joint LLM/MA course International and Comparative Corporate Law. I would like to acknowledge the support of Professor Gralf- Peter Calliess, the Centre for Transnational Studies and the Faculty of Law at the University of Bremen, where I was a Visiting Professor in February-March 2012, in allowing me to use their resources while undertaking the research for this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines an Overview of the Glass Lewis Approach to Proxy Advice
    2018 PROXY PAPER™ GUIDELINES AN OVERVIEW OF THE GLASS LEWIS APPROACH TO PROXY ADVICE GERMANY Table of Contents GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 Corporate Governance Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Changes for the 2018 Germany Policy Guidelines .......................................................................................... 1 A SUPERVISORY BOARD THAT SERVES SHAREHOLDER INTEREST ........................................... 3 Election of Supervisory Board Members ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Independence ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Other Considerations for Individual Board Members ............................................................................................................. 5 External Commitments ............................................................................................................................................................................................5 Board Structure and Composition ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]