Rothacker: Companies always react to new requirements with a certain delay. The result reflects the fact that individual companies have significantly improved their corporate governance. However, there have also been significant deteriorations, so that the overall average score of 2.8 in the Dax in 2024 has remained roughly at the previous year's level, which was 2.7.

Rothacker: Merck, Beiersdorf and Deutsche Telekom are the biggest climbers. Vonovia, SAP and MTU saw the biggest falls.

Rothacker: Infineon presents the skills profile of the Supervisory Board very transparently. It is clear how the competences ascribed are reflected in the CVs of the board members. We very much welcome it when companies actively establish a link between CV and expertise. This makes the assessment of supervisory board members much easier. Unfortunately, only a few companies offer this, but Infineon is a role model here.

Rothacker: Infineon also impresses with the broad independence of its Supervisory Board, which also applies to the Chairman and the Audit Committee. The remuneration structures are transparent, and there is no accumulation of positions on the Supervisory Board.

Rothacker: Unfortunately, yes. Nevertheless, we are seeing slight improvements across all companies with regard to the issue of independence, for example in the appointment of the chair of the Remuneration Committee. There has also been a slight improvement in the accumulation of directorships, but it is still too great. We were positively surprised that the discharge rates of supervisory board members at annual general meetings have increased. Overall attendance at meetings is also higher than in previous years. In addition, there were no requests for special audits last year. More and more companies are setting up sustainability committees and committing to a biodiversity policy.

Rothacker: Companies are making progress, but still too slowly. The issues have been known for a long time, but implementation is dragging on.

Schroeder: Unfortunately, many board members are still of the opinion that a supervisory board position in their company is only an option for them if they take over the chairmanship of the board. If this is not the case, they reject the nomination. From our perspective, independence is always to be welcomed. However, our policy is aimed at the entire board. We demand that more than half of the shareholder bank is made up of independent individuals.

Schroeder: An independent chairmanship of the Supervisory Board is our wish, but it is not a knock-out criterion. There may be reasons why very suitable candidates who are highly qualified for the position are the right choice, even if they do not fulfil certain independence criteria. This can be justified in individual cases as long as there is sufficient independence on the board as a whole.

Schroeder: In our view, a key shortcoming is the insufficient proportion of women on the Executive Board and the two management levels below it. Only 13 companies in the Dax achieve a 30% share of women on the Executive Board. Only eight companies show this ratio in the two management levels below. This is unsatisfactory, as such low percentages will not build up a pool of candidates. We believe that a threshold of 30% is necessary for the diversity criteria to lead to the desired result.

Rothacker: The ranking is still very helpful in discussions with supervisory boards. Many companies come to us after publication to discuss the results – regardless of whether they have done well or badly. They get the critical points in black and white, which is very popular. During the year, the ranking helps us as a team because we can make a well-founded assessment of the sticking points and successes at any time.

Rothacker: The virtual AGM is still not our preferred format. However, we think it is good that there is movement on the topic and that companies want to switch on certain occasions. This should facilitate discussions about the format, after the fronts have hardened considerably in recent years. However, promises must also be kept.

Rothacker: In the case of supervisory board elections, changes to management board remuneration, structural changes or capital resolutions, there should definitely be an exchange in-person. It would be very much to be hoped that companies will finally dare to use the hybrid format.

Schroeder: We will continue to call for this. We are clearly positioned here and believe it makes sense for companies to present their transformation plans to shareholders.

Schroeder: The USA is certainly taking a very different approach to climate protection than Europe. Companies with a larger US presence are now acting somewhat more cautiously, in anticipatory obedience, so as not to suffer any disadvantages. However, this does not diminish the relevance of the issue. Climate change continues to progress and must be limited.

Schroeder: No. Sustainability is part of risk management. Diversity is not a fashionable topic. It has been proven that mixed teams are more successful. Some companies that reject climate targets are already at risk of no longer receiving insurance cover. Such developments confirm our position that we should stick to ESG. Of course, you have to bear in mind that companies can also expose themselves to risk if they become too heavily involved in the topic. Overall, however, the topic remains relevant in terms of opportunities and risks.

Schroeder: It is of course important that companies act in a legally compliant manner. At the same time, we consider the developments in the USA to be worrying. It is to be hoped that only the packaging and terminology will change, but the content will remain the same.

Schroeder: We have taken a different decision and continue to follow the principle that armaments are necessary, but not categorised as sustainable. We only invest in defence stocks in conventional funds, but not in sustainable funds. Clarity and truth are very important to us in this area. The customer can decide in favour of or against sustainability. If they decide in favour, the fund must also be sustainable. The defence industry gets enough money through conventional funds.