In my opinion, the mood is still somewhat subdued. The economic stimulus intended to be provided by the coalition agreement, the announcement of the special fund and the associated investments and relief has not yet been fully realised. So far, there has been a lack of concrete political implementation, in particular to initiate investments on a larger scale. However, the federal government has only been in office for a short period. At the same time, the overall environment is very challenging. We have extreme global uncertainties that are intensifying on a daily basis: geopolitical escalations, unstable supply chains and, most recently, the constantly changing tariffs discussions are leading to volatility in business development and forecasts. Many companies are dragging weak order books from 2024 with them, that now have to be taken into account. And high energy costs are also still present.

No, this impression is not misleading. I see enormous expectation and the well-founded hope and confidence that politicians will deliver and that the first effects will be felt very quickly. It may not be a good seasonal comparison, but you can see the wrapped presents under the Christmas tree and can hardly wait for the presents to arrive. Recently, with the presentation of its immediate action program and its adoption in the Bundestag, the German government provided the first important (relief) impetus that companies can rely on. The mood is beginning to change – and it is about time it did! The economy must and wants to get to work, even if the individual framework conditions are difficult. We will be confronted with new, fundamental challenges again and again in the coming years. A stable bridge between business and politics is essential for this.

You are probably referring to the topic of sustainability and sustainability reporting. I have personally experienced the enormous resources that have been invested in so-called non-financial reporting by companies, and in some cases attention has been diverted away from sustainability programmes. This was certainly not a good development, even though the transparency of the data – used wisely – may help us to act in a more targeted manner in future and generate more impact in terms of sustainability.

In recent decades, deregulation has always come in cycles – including in Germany – and has only led to a selective dismantling of rules and simplification in certain areas (such as company law). One question that we have never really looked into is how we culturally understand regulation. It starts with the number of legislative measures: Last year there were around 13,000 legislative procedures in Europe; in the US there were around 3,500 in the same period, 75% less. We may no longer take everything from the USA as a blueprint, but we should take a closer look here.

In Europe and Germany, we need to think about the role that regulation should play in steering the economy. Detailed control of behaviour with restrictions, and the image of preventive regulation, or regulation that relies primarily on trust and responsibility on the part of those subject to regulation and only punishes excesses – for example through supervision. I am very much in favour of such enabling regulation. It will speed us up rather than hinder us. Of course, this entrepreneurial freedom must also be handled responsibly on the corporate side.

This is part of the complexity of regulation in Europe. In many legislative acts, the EU „only“ sets the minimum standard with the option for the member states to tighten the regulation even further. This is utilised just as frequently as the various voting rights are exercised. For internationally active companies, finding out how the relevant rules have been implemented in the individual EU countries is a tremendous extra effort. This only adds limited value, but is, of course, difficult to abolish at present.

EU regulation is always based on compromises. If such individual regulatory options for the Member States are abolished, legislative procedures in Brussels risk becoming even slower. The only solution here is a radical change in the regulatory approach, which must then be maintained. The omnibus is to be welcomed in principle; however, a lot of trust can be lost by going back and forth. Reliability is not a precious commodity!

That's an interesting thought, but it lags behind reality a bit with regard to financial reporting. Someone who invests in a company – as an institutional investor or as a private person with their individual pension provision – rightly and regularly expects a solid basis for this investment decision. It is not a question of whether company directors are suitable to manage a company, i.e. a kind of „driving licence“ for board members, but of transparency. A small side note: In financial institutions and insurance companies, the regulator uses both mechanisms: the „driving licence“ for directors plus detailed regulation of the performance of duties.

In recent years, the German legislator has often chosen transparency as a behavioural instrument, e.g. when introducing diversity: as a first step, it required reporting on the women's quota, a target, and the achievement of the target. Only when this mechanism did not have the desired effect did it establish a statutory women's quota. Transparency is therefore the „milder“ intervention in entrepreneurial freedom, certainly with some negative effect: the enormous effort involved in reporting.

A short time ago, I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. But with today's large language models and the technological progress that will be made in the next few years, I see things differently. Using artificial intelligence, all information will be personalised and available at a low threshold for individual information needs. In this respect, that is no longer an argument. Incidentally, this also calls into question the future of ESEF tagging.

Our governance model in Germany is very special. The main difference – also compared to the European Company (SE) – is that the supervisory boards are not as large. So instead of 20, they only have 12 members. It's a very different way of working. But let me say quite frankly: I very much appreciate the contribution of the employee representatives on the Supervisory Board. Co-determination in a well-managed supervisory board is not our primary challenge. It is the size of the board; it only allows for limited interaction and interactivity in the meetings. In large supervisory boards, we generally have many committees and more complex voting structures. This is inefficient and limits the committee, for example in its role as a sparring partner for the Management Board.

External Supervisory Board members rarely have the same company insights as employee representatives. The employee side brings other, very valuable perspectives to the strategic and operational discussions on the Supervisory Board. Broad stakeholder involvement and diversity are essential in our debates. Things are also moving internationally: there are other countries that are introducing employee perspectives to their boards.

Companies must continue to engage with sustainability. Not doing so will cost companies a lot of money; perhaps not today, but the day after tomorrow at the latest. We are already experiencing the physical effects of climate change (heat, water shortages, flooding, etc.). The vast majority of companies will be affected by this in one way or another. As a member of the Supervisory Board, I believe that the question of whether companies need to make efforts to protect the climate is unnecessary. There are solid economic reasons why a company needs to deal with climate change and its consequences.

Quite right. Despite all the justified criticism of the scope and level of detail of European sustainability reporting, this is precisely what can and must be learnt positively from ESRS reporting. Companies should evaluate exactly which sustainability actions they want to focus on with the knowledge gained. Where are the greatest economic and ecological levers? And where can companies make decisive improvements or have the greatest impact in the shortest possible time?

Absolutely. That was actually the intention with the dual materiality: focus on the key impacts, risks and opportunities. Perhaps a focus on the most pressing climate issues, such as CO2 reduction, would have been preferable. And if we work on this in a focussed way, we might also solve the issues of biodiversity, water, waste, etc. to some extent. I understand the physical urgency, but the big regulatory sweep has caused fatigue. But we need momentum for this transformation – definitely!

Absolutely right. You have to start with training. In recent years, we have seen that women are graduating equally or even disproportionately well and taking their first career steps, but from a certain management level onwards, such a rapid change in the top management levels was only possible with external control, the women's quota. In my opinion, a lot of effort is being made to get young women interested in STEM professions.

Just two sentences on the development in the USA: this is hopefully just a temporary political trend that will lead to external effects such as policy changes. With our shortage of skilled labour, very few companies can afford to take a step backwards when it comes to DEI.

My observation is that companies are aware of the challenges involved in getting young people into training and later into careers - and not just women. In addition, the baby boomers will soon be retiring from the labour market due to their age. Despite all the advances in technology, companies will have to work against this. What concerns me is how experience and knowledge can be passed on to the younger generation. This is also a cultural issue.

When it comes to the shortage of skilled labour, efforts are focused on attracting young talent and making the company attractive to this generation. This is hugely important, no question about it. Nevertheless, we often neglect to keep older employees in the company and to take their needs into account as well. In my opinion, this must change. This is People & Talent Management, a topic that has now also reached the Supervisory Board. With the exception of HR planning, HR topics were not really dealt with in depth by the Supervisory Board for a long time. Today, we deal with the results of employee surveys, the Employee Engagement Index, training programmes, questions about home office arrangements, job sharing and much more. We talk much more comprehensively about the people in the company. That is a very good development.

In the last decade, the topics on the supervisory board agenda have become more extensive: Compliance, sustainability reporting, artificial intelligence, cyber security, customs duties, supply chains, sanctions packages – the spectrum is extremely broad. At the same time, supervisory board work today is more agile and time-consuming. As a member of the Supervisory Board, I have to familiarise myself with many current topics. I don't have to be an expert everywhere, but I do have to be able to speak and ask questions. Addressing the right questions to the Executive Board and feeding ideas into the strategy discussion, for example, is part of my role as a sparring partner. This is how many supervisory boards see themselves today: it is about the impact of the supervisory board, i.e. managing the company and participating in the further development of the company in a value-adding way while maintaining the responsibility of the management board.