German companies separate the people who run the business from the people who supervise them into two legally distinct boards with no overlapping membership. A chief executive cannot chair the board that appoints them, and a supervisory board member cannot hold an executive role. The structure removes a conflict that single-board systems manage through committees and independence rules, and it creates a different set of problems.
The two-tier board is the most consequential structural difference between German and Anglo-American governance, and it is frequently described inaccurately. Understanding what each board can and cannot do explains how German companies actually make decisions. This case study belongs to the governance pillar of the Germany Company Stories hub.
What are the two boards?
A management board that runs the company and a supervisory board that appoints, monitors and dismisses it, with strictly separate membership.
What does the separation solve?
The conflict inherent in executives supervising themselves, which single-board systems address through independent directors and committee structures.
What does it create?
Information asymmetry, since supervisors depend almost entirely on the executives they oversee for the information used to assess them.
What does each board actually do?
The management board holds collective responsibility for running the company. Its members are jointly liable for management decisions, and it is genuinely collegial: German law makes the board as a whole responsible rather than concentrating authority in a chief executive.
That collegiality is a real difference. A German chief executive is the chair of a collective body with defined portfolios, not a principal who directs subordinates, and major decisions require board resolution rather than executive fiat.
The supervisory board appoints and dismisses management board members, sets their compensation, approves defined categories of transaction, and monitors performance. It cannot manage, and attempting to would breach the separation.
The approval catalogue is the practical lever. The supervisory board defines which transactions require its consent, typically acquisitions, disposals, capital expenditure and financing above thresholds, and that list determines how much influence it actually has.
What is the information problem?
Supervisory board members meet a handful of times a year, hold other full-time roles, and rely on reports prepared by the executives they are supervising. That is a genuine structural weakness and it is the mechanism behind most German governance failures.
The failure pattern is consistent. A supervisory board reviewing a major acquisition receives the management case, the advisers engaged by management, and the models management commissioned, and it tests the reasoning rather than the facts, as the Bayer analysis demonstrates.
The remedies are available and underused: an independent budget for the supervisory board to commission its own advice, direct access to internal audit and to the second management layer, and mandatory external review for transactions above a threshold.
The cost of these measures is trivial relative to the outcomes they prevent, and they are resisted because they imply distrust of the management board, which is precisely the relationship the structure exists to formalise.
How are supervisory board members selected?
Shareholder representatives are elected at the annual general meeting, typically on a slate proposed by the existing board. Employee representatives are elected by the workforce and by unions under statutory procedures.
The shareholder side has historically been criticised for insularity, with the same individuals holding multiple mandates and existing boards effectively selecting their own successors. Reforms have limited the number of concurrent mandates and strengthened independence and competence requirements.
The practical qualification that matters most is sector understanding. A supervisory board reviewing a complex technical or financial business needs members who can identify what is missing from a presentation, which is a different skill from general executive experience.
The audit committee is where this concentrates. Financial expertise requirements apply to its members, and it does more substantive work than the full board, which meets too infrequently to examine anything in depth.
How does executive compensation work under this system?
Set by the supervisory board, subject to a shareholder vote on the compensation system and to statutory requirements on appropriateness and long-term orientation.
German executive pay has historically been substantially lower than American equivalents for companies of comparable size, which reflects both the governance structure and social expectation. Supervisory boards including employee representatives face direct internal comparison with workforce pay.
The structural consequence is a smaller equity component and more emphasis on multi-year cash incentives tied to operational metrics, which reduces the incentive for share price management and reduces the ability to compete for internationally mobile executives.
That trade is genuine and unresolved. Companies competing globally for executive talent argue the constraint costs them candidates; critics respond that the pay gap has not produced measurably worse management.
Is the two-tier structure better?
Different rather than better, and the evidence does not strongly favour either. Single-board systems achieve separation through independent directors and committees, which works when independence is genuine and fails when it is nominal.
The two-tier system makes separation structural and cannot be eroded by a dominant chief executive accumulating board allies, which is a real advantage.
It is weaker on engagement. A single-board director attends more meetings, sees management continuously and develops deeper knowledge of the business, while a supervisory board member is more distant by design.
The convergence is real in practice. Single-board systems have strengthened independence requirements while German supervisory boards have added committees, more frequent meetings and deeper information rights, so the two structures are functionally closer than the legal difference suggests.
What does the audit committee actually do?
Most of the supervisory board's substantive work on financial oversight. It reviews the financial statements, oversees the external audit, monitors internal control and risk management systems, and handles the relationship with the auditor including the recommendation on appointment.
Its effectiveness depends on two things: at least one member with genuine financial expertise, which is now a legal requirement, and direct access to internal audit and to the auditor without management present.
That private session with the auditor is the single most valuable practice available to a supervisory board. Auditors will say things without management in the room that they will not say with management present, and boards that never hold such sessions forfeit their best information channel.
The Wirecard case turned on exactly this: audit committee questions about the physical existence and direct confirmation of cash balances would have been answerable in days and were not asked in a form that required a substantive answer.
How is board effectiveness actually assessed?
Through periodic self-evaluation, increasingly with external facilitation, examining composition, meeting effectiveness, information quality and the board's handling of major decisions.
The useful version examines outcomes rather than process. Which decisions did the board change or improve, which risks did it identify before management raised them, and which of its questions produced information that was not in the original papers.
The less useful version measures attendance and meeting count, which correlate poorly with anything. A board attending every meeting and approving every proposal is not supervising.
The practical improvement lever is meeting design. Time spent on presentations rather than on discussion is time wasted, and boards that circulate material in advance and use meeting time for questions consistently outperform those that do not.
How does the structure handle a chief executive who must be replaced?
More cleanly than a single-board system. The supervisory board holds the appointment and dismissal power directly, is not chaired by the executive, and does not depend on the executive for its own composition.
The practical constraint is contractual. Management board members are appointed for fixed terms, typically three to five years, and early termination requires either cause or a negotiated settlement, which can be expensive.
The succession weakness is different. Because supervisory board members are part-time and distant from operations, they frequently lack visibility of the internal candidates below management board level, which pushes appointments toward external hires or toward the candidate management itself proposes.
The remedy is a structured succession process with supervisory board exposure to the second management layer over several years, which few boards implement and which materially improves the quality of internal appointments.
What does the European company form change?
It allows board composition to be negotiated once and then fixed, which can preserve a lower level of employee representation than German law would otherwise require as the company grows.
The mechanism is that employee involvement in a European company is set by agreement at the time of formation, based on the arrangements existing then, and subsequent growth past statutory thresholds does not automatically change it.
A number of German companies have converted for exactly this reason, alongside genuine cross-border operational rationales. The practice is legal, contested and increasingly examined by courts assessing whether a conversion was abusive.
What it does not change is works council rights at establishment level, which remain fully applicable, so the operational relationship with employees is unaffected regardless of board composition.
How does the structure handle a crisis?
Slowly at the start and then decisively. A supervisory board meeting quarterly is poorly configured to respond to a fast-developing situation, which is why boards convene extraordinary meetings and delegate to a small committee during crises.
The practical arrangement that works is a standing crisis protocol: a defined subgroup, usually the chair plus committee chairs, empowered to meet at short notice with defined decision authority, reporting to the full board.
Where the structure performs well is in dismissing management when necessary, since the supervisory board holds that power directly and does not depend on the executive it is removing.
What should an investor examine?
Three things: whether the supervisory board contains genuine sector expertise, whether the audit committee meets separately with the auditor, and how many mandates the members hold elsewhere.
The third is the most easily checked and among the most predictive. A member holding several demanding mandates cannot give any of them the attention required, and boards populated by the overcommitted supervise nominally.
A final observation on convergence: many German companies now run supervisory boards with six or more meetings a year, active committees and direct access to divisional management, which narrows the practical gap with single-board systems considerably. The legal structures differ more than the working practices do.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a German CEO sit on the supervisory board?
No. Membership of the two boards is strictly separate, and a former management board member faces a cooling-off period before joining the supervisory board of the same company.
Who appoints the management board?
The supervisory board appoints, sets compensation for and can dismiss management board members, subject to the terms of their contracts.
What is the approval catalogue?
The defined list of transactions requiring supervisory board consent, typically acquisitions, disposals, major capital expenditure and financing above set thresholds.
Is a German CEO as powerful as an American one?
Formally less so. The management board is collegial with collective responsibility, so the chief executive chairs a body rather than directing subordinates.
Discover more from Kurums | Business Intelligence
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
