DSW boss Marc Tüngler practices self-criticism

The state is significantly involved in both Post and Telekom. According to the code, Appel should no longer hold a top position at both companies, at least until next May. Neither the government commission as a whole nor its chairman, Rolf Nonnenmacher, have made any critical statements to date.

Tüngler, who is the main manager of the German Protection Association for Securities Ownership (DSW) in his main job, now dares to come out of the cover, demands consequences and also shows self-criticism. The debates about corporate governance must be more visible in public: “We have to be louder.” The reputation of the German economy is not without reason significantly worse than reality. “In essence, we have a communication problem,” says Tüngler.

Read the full interview here:

Mr. Tüngler, more debt instead of more prosperity – the economic system as we know it no longer works well. How do we deal with it when a large part of the population no longer seems to trust our system?
In fact, today it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain or even defend the achievements of the social market economy. Unfortunately, we are seeing a radicalization of society in many places, and certainties that we take for granted are beginning to falter. The accusation: The system does not serve the citizen, but the citizen alone serves the system for the benefit of a few. The centrifugal forces lead to a strengthening of the extreme positions – socially and politically. A ticking time bomb.

What should I do?
Considering that, for example, only the same, small group will benefit from our system, one must not approach it with arrogance and blinders. This can be countered with exemplary behavior that protects the interests of all stakeholders and is free of scandals – in other words, good corporate governance.

“Frank Appel is a very good CEO of Swiss Post”

How can it then be that two state-owned companies such as Deutsche Post and Deutsche Telekom violate this? Frank Appel has held a dual mandate for a few months, which shouldn’t really exist.
First of all, Frank Appel is a very good CEO of the post office and a no less suitable chairman of the supervisory board of Telekom. The fact that the state consciously accepts or causes a breach of code rules irritates me, like many other people, and is open to criticism. In doing so, the federal government did Telekom, Frank Appel and corporate governance in Germany a disservice. The “tone from the top” makes the music and is even more important today than it used to be.

Why does the federal government allow itself this “bad tone from above”? Is that the arrogance you describe?
A change at the top of the supervisory board doesn’t just fall out of the sky. It announces itself for a long time. In this respect, the “error” must be sought in the last twelve to 18 months before Frank Appel was named. But no matter why and how, it is actually a matter of course that the federal government will not overtake the code commission it created itself.

It was also argued that there was no other suitable or willing candidate to chair Deutsche Telekom’s supervisory board. What do you think? Is that so? Are supervisory board mandates no longer attractive?
The mandate as a member of the supervisory board is extremely demanding, and that is especially true for the chairmanship. So it’s not surprising that the search for a successor is more difficult at a company like Telekom. But even that doesn’t explain the breach of the code by Frank Appel’s one-year dual role. I expect the federal government to demand and implement smart and code-compliant solutions.

Doesn’t the Appel case show that the Commission and the Code are toothless tigers and therefore superfluous in the real sense of the word?
No, it is already correctly set up as an institution of self-regulation. I would rather argue the other way around. It is precisely such occasions that should stimulate and broaden the discussion.

I am also familiar with this debate in a different context. Whenever the federal government has enacted a code provision into law, it has been argued that it is an affront and that the government is making the code superfluous. I also see that very differently. Code and law are not in competition. They complement each other, interact and correspond. And: If you want to avoid legal regulations, you should simply comply with the code.

Should the Code and the Commission be reformed?
The code provides orientation. The same applies to the Commission. Both are therefore correctly designed in terms of their structure. Perhaps we should all be more conscious and visible when dealing with undesirable developments and misconduct that have occurred. Personally, I would like us to talk, discuss and argue more about good corporate governance in a positive sense. I miss that, even if a lot has happened in Germany in the past 15 years. However, the debate is not visible enough for me. We have to get louder.

Why didn’t the Commission raise its voice in the Appel case? In the end, you and the other commissioners, many of whom were confident and experienced, were passed over.
We must not forget: the Commission is neither a police nor a judge. The companies and here the supervisory board are given specific recommendations and suggestions. The code makes misconduct visible in the first place. Without the Code’s guidelines, the public would not be able to recognize good or bad governance, or it would be much harder for them to recognize it.

What does your membership of the Commission mean to you?
She is very important to me. Being a member of the Code Commission doesn’t necessarily mean being loved. I learned that quickly. Companies that do their homework see the code as superfluous. Companies whose governance is questionable feel patronized or threatened. But this ambivalence sharpens the senses. It is important to find a good and right middle. And it is often the increased transparency of company-specific governance that is particularly effective.

Tüngler criticizes the culture of discussion that “takes getting used to”.

So it’s better to keep quiet and only recommend recommendations instead of legal regulations than not addressing them at all?
As far as recommendations instead of legal regulations are concerned, a clear yes applies here. And as I said, we have to be louder. It is not without reason that the reputation of the German economy is significantly worse than reality. At its core, we have a communication problem. In the public debate, companies and their leaders either play no or a negative role. This leads to considerable distortions in perception and effect.

An example please.
If you don’t raise your voice, you won’t be noticed. Where does business and where do business leaders still find themselves today in the general public? This may also be due to the culture of discussion in talk shows in this country, which certainly takes some getting used to, that company representatives keep away. But this deepens the communication problem and the gap.

What should I do?
Companies and their management should be more the subject and not just the negative object of discourse. This means, firstly, that board members should become much more active in terms of communication. Most recently, Covestro boss Oliver Steilemann and Evonik boss Christian Kullmann made a positive impression here. In their roles as VCI presidents, they make factual contributions to discussions on topics that affect us all. Secondly, this also means that politics and business should work together here. That was and is the Commission’s approach.
Mr. Tüngler, thank you very much for the interview.

More: Stumbling start for the new chief supervisor at Deutsche Telekom