Germany's Two-Board System: Corporate Governance Challenges
This paper examines the two-board system of corporate governance originating in Germany, in which a supervisory board elected by shareholders oversees an executive management board. It describes the system's structure, explains how German banks and block shareholders dominate supervisory boards despite the system's democratizing intent, and contrasts the German model with U.S. corporate governance practices. The paper then traces how SEC regulations and high-profile corporate failures have pushed U.S. companies toward some two-tier characteristics. Finally, it identifies key challenges confronting boards today, particularly the conflict of interest created by executive stock options and share buybacks, and argues that neither the German nor the American model achieves meaningful corporate accountability.
- Introduction: Overview of two-board system and paper scope
- The Two-Board System: German structure, voting rights, and bank dominance
- How the Board Has Evolved: SEC reforms, scandals, and accountability gaps
- Challenges Going Forward: Share buybacks, conflicts of interest, macro pressures
- Conclusion: Both systems fall short of real accountability
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses concrete, contemporary examples — Tesla's executive compensation and BlackRock's asset dominance — to ground abstract governance concepts in recognizable real-world situations.
- Moves logically from structural description to historical evolution to forward-looking challenges, giving the argument a clear progressive arc.
- Draws a pointed comparative thread between the German and U.S. systems throughout, preventing the paper from becoming a one-sided country study.
- Cites both academic sources (Bouwman, Cornell & Damodaran) and practitioner/trade sources (Light, Reda) to balance scholarly rigor with applied relevance.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative institutional analysis: it places two governance models side by side, identifies their stated goals, and then systematically evaluates the gap between intention and outcome. By showing that both the German supervisory-board model and the U.S. independent-audit model ultimately fail to prevent concentrated power, the author produces a critique that is stronger than either single-country analysis could achieve alone.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into five sections. The introduction defines the two-board system and states the paper's scope. The second section describes the German structure in detail — composition, voting rights, and the role of banks — and contrasts it with U.S. practice. The third section traces the board's evolution through SEC regulation and corporate scandals. The fourth and longest section addresses ongoing challenges, focusing on share buybacks, executive compensation conflicts, and the macroeconomic pressures that constrain board independence. The conclusion synthesizes both national cases into a skeptical overall verdict on corporate governance reform.
Introduction
The two-board system of directors theoretically presents a way to achieve greater accountability and oversight in corporate governance. The system was developed in Germany with the idea of placing a supervisory board over the management board, with the members of the former elected by shareholders. In functional terms, however, the supervisory board can be involved in long-term decisions that impact the corporation — so it is not entirely accurate to define this board as being focused solely on accountability and oversight (Proctor, 2002). This paper discusses the structure and role of the two-board system of directors, how the board has evolved, and what the greatest challenges are facing it.
The Two-Board System
The structure of the Board of Directors in Germany's two-board system came about as a result of that nation's preference for a more inclusive form of governance that combined oversight with representation (Owen, 2003). The two-tiered board structure is comprised of one group of insiders who sit on the management board and another group — representatives of employees and shareholders — who make up the supervisory board. Thus, the two-tiered board system consists of one management board and one supervisory board that work together to oversee the company. The management board is filled with insiders, i.e., directors. The supervisory board is filled with shareholders and workers. The supervisory board, in turn, oversees the management board.
German banks play a major role in the boards of corporations in Germany, as Ewmi (2005) points out, since they are considered shareholders with long-term stakes in these companies. For that reason, it is not uncommon to find German bank representatives sitting on supervisory boards.
Another key aspect of the German board system is that voting rights are much more curtailed than in the United States. Ewmi (2005) notes that "voting right restrictions are legal; these limit a shareholder to voting a certain percentage of the corporation's total share capital, regardless of share ownership position" (p. 10). This is an important point because it indicates that a monopoly of voting rights held by a handful of people is not permitted. Voting rights are meant to be more evenly distributed in the German two-tier system to prevent the kind of concentrated power one often sees in companies like Tesla, where the board is essentially managed by one individual and his family (Cornell & Damodaran, 2014). However, as Siebert (2004) notes, banks tend to occupy a dominating position in terms of voting rights and control over boards within Germany's system. The reason the German system has not succeeded in avoiding monopolistic control over boards has to do with block holdings of shares: "block holding seems to dominate in Germany due to the fact that share owner representatives are more powerful in bargaining with employee representatives on the supervisory board than if they had dispersed votes" (Siebert, 2004, p. 43). The end result is that, although the two-tier system in Germany was ostensibly meant to democratize corporate boards, corporate control is still essentially in the hands of a small group of bankers.
The two-tier structure differs from the U.S. model, where the separation of ownership and control or management of the corporation is integral to the American idea of corporate governance (Zhao, 2010). This approach, however, has given rise to a professional class of corporate board officers whose careers are characterized by sitting on various boards across different corporations. It is the main reason one can examine publicly held companies from various sectors and find familiar names and faces throughout their respective boards. Overlapping boards of directorates prevail, and the overlap facilitates the propagation of corporate governance throughout the wider corporate world (Bouwman, 2011). The situation in the United States is aggravated, one could argue, by the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few large funds — such as Vanguard or BlackRock — which controls over $7 trillion in assets and holds significant positions in major corporations in both the United States and Europe (Ahmed, 2020).
How the Board Has Evolved
Because of SEC regulations, companies must now demonstrate some characteristics of the two-tier structure — if not in formal terms, then at least in spirit. For example, the requirement that public companies maintain an audit team composed of independent members who have no positions or ties to the firm is now standard practice (Bukhvalov & Bukhvalova, 2011). This evolution has come about as a result of various corporate governance failures, including cases such as Enron, WorldCom, and numerous others over the decades. Yet questions remain as to how to evaluate board performance and whether there is any real accountability in the system.
When companies like Tesla are able to win board approval for a series of billion-dollar payouts to its CEO, one must wonder whether significant oversight truly exists. Shareholders have not been quick to punish the company's stock over the matter — on the contrary, the performance of the CEO and the rewarding of options valued in the billions has been directly tied to stock price performance, incentivizing the CEO to sustain market momentum and incentivizing investors to buy in, as both parties mutually benefit from rising share prices. On the face of it, this would appear to be evidence of manipulation and conflict of interest — yet the SEC has done little on the matter, thus tacitly approving the role of the board in awarding billions to a CEO who has yet to lead the company to a full year of profit based on actual product sales rather than the sale of carbon credits. The exclusion of Tesla from the S&P 500 Index was a sign that at least some observers have been paying attention.
Conclusion
The board structure within the two-board system originating in Germany was developed to help ensure oversight of management by having shareholders install representatives on a supervisory board to oversee the management board. The supervisory board, however, tends to be dominated by banks — which are considered shareholders — and block share holdings give those banks near-monopolistic control. In the United States, similar control is exercised, though the board structure differs slightly; the two-board concept is reflected mainly in the existence of an independent audit team rather than a formal supervisory board.
References
Ahmed, S. (2020). BlackRock profit beats estimates as assets top $7 trillion. Retrieved from Reuters.
Bouwman, C. H. (2011). Corporate governance propagation through overlapping directors. The Review of Financial Studies, 24(7), 2358–2394.
Bukhvalov, A., & Bukhvalova, B. (2011). The principal role of the board of directors: The duty to say "no." Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 11(5), 629–640.
Cornell, B., & Damodaran, A. (2014). Tesla: Anatomy of a run-up. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 41(1), 139–151.
Ewmi, P. F. (2005). Three models of corporate governance from developed capital markets. Lectures on Corporate Governance, December, 1–14.
Light, L. (2019). More than half of all stock buybacks are now financed by debt. Here's why that's a problem. Retrieved from Fortune.
Owen, C. J. (2003). Board games: Germany's monopoly on the two-tier system of corporate governance and why the post-Enron United States would benefit from its adoption. Penn St. Int'l L. Rev., 22, 167.
Proctor, M. (2002). Corporate governance. Cavendish Publishing.
Reda, J. (2018). How stock buybacks can affect executive compensation. Retrieved from Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog.
Siebert, H. (2004). Germany's capital market and corporate governance (No. 1206). Kiel Working Paper.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.