6. Integrating Sustainability in EU Corporate Governance Codes

See, for example, Kirkpatrick, G. (2009). “The Corporate Governance Lessons from the Financial Crisis”. OECD Journal of Financial Market Trends, 1, 61; and EU Commission, Green Paper, Corporate governance in financial institutions and remuneration policies, Bruxelles, 284 final, 2010. For a critical evaluation in relation to the banking sector, see: Fahlenbrach, R. & Stulz, R.M. (2010). “Bank CEO Incentives and the Credit Crisis”. Journal of Financial Economics, 99(1), 11; Hopt, Klaus J., Better Governance of Financial Institutions (April 1, 2013). “Corporate Governance of Banks and Other Financial Institutions After the Financial Crisis”. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 13 Part 2 (2013), 219–253 (Part B), “Corporate Governance of Banks after the Financial Crisis”, in E. Wymeersch, K.J. Hopt, and G. Ferrarini (eds.), Financial Regulation and Supervision, a Post-crisis Analysis. Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 337–367 (Part A), ECGI—Law Working Paper No. 207, Available at SSRN: https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​2212198; Mülbert, Peter O., Corporate Governance of Banks after the Financial Crisis—Theory, Evidence, Reforms (April 2010). ECGI—Law Working Paper No. 130/2009, Available at SSRN: https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​1448118 or http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​2139/​ssrn.​1448118; Beltratti, Andrea, & Stulz, Rene M., Why Did Some Banks Perform Better during the Credit Crisis? A Cross-Country Study of the Impact of Governance and Regulation (July 13, 2009). Charles A Dice Center Working Paper No. 2009-12, Fisher College of Business Working Paper No. 2009-03-012, Available at SSRN: https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​1433502 or http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​2139/​ssrn.​1433502 (with mixed results about the role of corporate governance during the crisis).

See High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (HLEG) (2018). Final Report, 38.

European Commission, Consultation document: Renewed sustainable finance strategy (8 April 2020), p. 37.

EU Commission, Inception Impact Assessment, Sustainable corporate governance, Ref. Ares(2020)4034032—30/07/2020.

EU Commission, Communication on the European Green Deal, 11 December 2019, COM(2019) 640 final p. 17.

See, for example: Wymeersch, E. (2013). “European Corporate Governance Codes and Their Effectiveness”, in M. Belcredi and G. Ferrarini (eds.), Boards and Shareholders in European Listed Companies Facts, Context and Post-crisis Reforms. Cambridge University Press, 67–142; Böckli, P., Davies, P.L., Ferran, E., Ferrarini, G., Garrido Garcia, J.M., Hopt, K.J., Pietrancosta, A., Pistor, K., Roth, M., Skog, R.R., Soltysinski, S., Winter, J.W., & Wymeersch, E.O. (2014). Making Corporate Governance codes More Effective: A Response to the European Commission’s Action Plan of December 2012. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 56/2014; Ferrero-Ferrero, I., & Ackrill, R. (2016). “Europeanization and the Soft Law Process of EU Corporate Governance: How Has the 2003 Action Plan Impacted on National Corporate Governance Codes?” Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(4), 878–895; Stiglbauer, M., & Velte, P. (2014). “Impact of Soft Law Regulation by Corporate Governance Codes on Firm Valuation: The Case of Germany”. International Journal of Business in Society, 14, 395–406; Bianchi, M., Ciavarella, A., Novembre, V., & Signoretti, R. (2011). “Comply or Explain: Investor Protection Through the Italian Corporate Governance Code”. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 23(1), 107–121; and RiskMetrics Group et al. (2009). Study on Monitoring and Enforcement Practices in Corporate Governance in the Member States. Study commissioned by the European Commission.

See Sjåfjell, B. (2016). “When the Solution Becomes the Problem: The Triple Failure of Corporate Governance Codes”, in J.J. Du Plessis and C.K. Low (eds.), Corporate Governance Codes for the 21st Century: International Perspectives and Critic, 23–55; Szabó, D.G., & Sørensen, K.E. (2013). “Integrating Corporate Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance Codes in the EU”. European Business Law Review, 24(6), 781–828.

Id.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions the European Green Deal, COM/2019/640 final.

European Commission. Communication from the Commission a Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development, COM/2001/0264 final (15 May 2001).

See Clarke, T. (2007). International Corporate Governance. Routledge, 175–179; Wymeersch, E. (2008). “The Corporate Governance ‘Codes of Conduct’ Between State and Private Law”, in R. Zimmermann et al. (eds.), Globalisierung und Entstaatlichung des Rechts (Mohr Siebeck) vol 2, 66–72; and Zattoni, A., & Cuomo, F. (2008). “Why Adopt Codes of Good Governance? A Comparison of Institutional and Efficiency Perspectives”. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(1), 6–7.

Directive 2006/46/EC of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings.

EU Commission Communication, Action Plan: European company law and corporate governance - a modern legal framework for more engaged shareholders and sustainable companies, COM/2012/0740 final.

In this regard, consider Directive 2013/50/EU (‘Transparency Directive’) revised in 2013, and the recent Directive 2017/828 (‘Shareholder Rights Directive II’) replacing the 2007 version.

EU Commission, Recommendations of 9 April 2014 on the quality of corporate governance reporting (‘comply or explain’).

EU Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth, COM (2018) 97 final (March 2018).

European Commission, Communication from the Commission A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development, COM/2001/0264 final.

EU Commission, Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 final.

UN, Paris Agreement on Climate Change, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (12 December 2015).

EU Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Next steps for a sustainable European future European action for sustainability, COM(2016) 739 final.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions the European Green Deal, COM/2019/640 final.

In accordance with Article 2 of the same directive, in 2017 the EU Commission published some voluntary guidelines on methodology for reporting non-financial information in order “to help companies disclose high quality, relevant, useful, consistent and more comparable non-financial information in a way that fosters resilient and sustainable growth and employment, and provides transparency to stakeholders.” The EU Commission further integrated such guidelines to improve the corporate disclosure of climate-related information in line with recommendations made by the EU Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance. European Commission. See Guidelines on non-financial reporting 2017/C 215/01 and European Commission. Guidelines on Non-Financial Reporting: Supplement on Reporting Climate-Related Information, C (2019) 4490 Final (17 June 2019). Available online: https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​finance/​docs/​policy/​190618-climate-related-information-reporting-guidelines_​en.​pdf (accessed on 28 September 2019).

Such directive applies, specifically, to “large undertakings which are public-interest entities exceeding on their balance sheet dates the criterion of the average number of 500 employees during the financial year. See Article 19a of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive.”

See ESMA, Report Enforcement and regulatory activities of European enforcers in 2019 (April 2020) and Alliance for Corporate Transparency, 2019 Research Report: An analysis of the sustainability reports of 1000 companies pursuant to the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive (February 2020).

See ESMA, Report Undue short-term pressure on corporations (18 December 2019).

Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of 27 November 2019 on sustainability‐related disclosures in the financial services sector.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions the European Green Deal, COM/2019/640 final, Annex.

https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​info/​law/​better-regulation/​have-your-say/​initiatives/​12129-Revision-of-Non-Financial-Reporting-Directive/​public-consultation. See Commission, ‘Consultation strategy for the revision of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive – Background document’ (20 February 2020).

See EU Commission, Summary Report of the Public Consultation on the Review of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive, Ares(2020)3997889—29/07/2020, available at https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​info/​law/​better-regulation/​have-your-say/​initiatives/​12129-Revision-of-Non-Financial-Reporting-Directive/​public-consultation.

See Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088.

Regulation (EU) 2019/2089 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 as regards EU Climate Transition Benchmarks, EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks and sustainability-related disclosures for benchmarks.

UN Environment-Finance Initiative. Changing Course 2019. Available online: https://​www.​unepfi.​org/​publications/​investment-publications/​changing-course-a-comprehensive-investor-guide-to-scenario-based-methods-for-climate-risk-assessment-in-response-to-the-tcfd/​ (accessed on 28 September 2019).

HLEG. Final Report. 2018. Available online: https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​info/​sites/​info/​files/​180131-sustainable-finance-final-report_​en.​pdf (accessed on 28 September 2019).

EU Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth, COM (2018) 97 final (March 2018).

EU Commission, n 740, 11.

Lise Smit, Claire Bright, Robert McCorquodale, Matthias Bauer, Hanna Deringer, Daniela Baeza- Breinbauer, Francisca Torres-Cortés, Frank Alleweldt, Senda Kara and Camille Salinier and Héctor Tejero Tobed, Study on due diligence requirements through the supply chain, Final report (January 2020), available at https://​op.​europa.​eu/​en/​publication-detail/​-/​publication/​8ba0a8fd-4c83-11ea-b8b7-01aa75ed71a1/​language-en.

EY, Study on directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance, July 2020, available at https://​op.​europa.​eu/​en/​publication-detail/​-/​publication/​e47928a2-d20b-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1/​language-en/​format-PDF.

Ibidem, p. 10.

According to the study, these are: (1) directors’ duties and company’s interest tendency to favour the short-term maximization of shareholder value; (2) growing pressures from investors with a short-term horizon; (3) companies lack of a strategic perspective over sustainability; (4) board remuneration structures that incentivise the focus on short-term shareholder value; (5) current board composition inadequacy to support a shift towards sustainability; (6) current corporate governance frameworks and practices insufficient stakeholder engagement and involvement; and (7) limited enforcement of the directors’ duty to act in the long-term interest of company.

EU Commission, Inception Impact Assessment, Sustainable corporate governance, Ref. Ref. Ares(2020)4034032—30/07/2020.

See, for example, Roe, Mark J. and Spamann, Holger and Fried, Jesse M. and Wang, Charles C.Y., The European Commission’s Sustainable corporate governance Report: A Critique (October 14, 2020). European Corporate Governance Institute—Law Working Paper 553/2020, available at SSRN: https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​3711652 or http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​2139/​ssrn.​3711652. See also Ringe, W.-G., Bassen, A., Lopatta, K., EC Corporate Governance Initiative Series: “The EU Sustainable Corporate Governance Initiative—Room for Improvement”, Opinion (15 Oct 2020), available at https://​www.​law.​ox.​ac.​uk/​business-law-blog/​blog/​2020/​10/​ec-corporate-governance-initiative-series-eu-sustainable-corporate.

Consider, one for all, Larry Fink’s Letter to CEOs, available at: https://​www.​blackrock.​com/​corporate/​investor-relations/​larry-fink-ceo-letter.

See, for example, Wymeersch, E. (2013). “European Corporate Governance Codes and Their Effectiveness”, in M. Belcredi & G. Ferrarini (Eds.), Boards and Shareholders in European Listed Companies Facts, Context and Post-crisis Reforms. Cambridge University Press, 67–142; Böckli, P., Davies, P.L., Ferran, E., Ferrarini, G. and Garrido Garcia, J.M., Hopt, K.J., Pietrancosta, A., Pistor, K., Roth, M., Skog, R.R., Soltysinski, S., Winter, J.W., & Wymeersch, E.O. (2014). Making Corporate Governance Codes More Effective: A Response to the European Commission’s Action Plan of December 2012. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 56/2014; Ferrero-Ferrero, I., & Ackrill, R. (2016). “Europeanization and the Soft Law Process of EU Corporate Governance: How Has the 2003 Action Plan Impacted on National Corporate Governance Codes?” Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(4), 878–895; Stiglbauer, M., & Velte, P. (2014). “Impact of Soft Law Regulation by Corporate Governance Codes on Firm Valuation: The Case of Germany”. International Journal of Business in Society, 14, 395–406; Bianchi, M., Ciavarella, A., Novembre, V., & Signoretti, R. (2011). “Comply or Explain: Investor Protection Through the Italian Corporate Governance Code”. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 23(1), 107–121; and RiskMetrics Group et al. (2009). Study on Monitoring and Enforcement Practices in Corporate Governance in the Member States. Study commissioned by the European Commission.

See Sjåfjell, B. (2016). “When the Solution Becomes the Problem: The Triple Failure of Corporate Governance Codes”, in J.J. Du Plessis and C.K. Low (eds.), Corporate Governance Codes for the 21st Century: International Perspectives and Critic, 23–55; and Szabó, D.G., & Sørensen, K.E. (2013). “Integrating Corporate Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance Codes in the EU”. European Business Law Review, 24(6), 781–828.

Id.

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

Excepted for the Czech Corporate Governance Code, as only the Czech version was provided and, therefore, the authors had to rely on a software-based translation.

Data are partially drawn from OECD, The Corporate Governance Factbook, 2019, pp. 43–46.

OECD Code (2004), p. 11.

OECD Code (2015), p. 7.

OECD Code (2015), p. 9.

UK Code (2018), p. 1 and Principle A.

OECD Code, 2015, p. 9.

“The purpose of corporate governance is to help build an environment of trust, transparency and accountability necessary for fostering long-term investment, financial stability and business integrity, thereby supporting stronger growth and more inclusive societies”, G20/OECD Code of Corporate Governance (2015), p. 7.

UK Code (2018), p. 1.

(Bulgarian) National Corporate Governance Code (2016), p. 3.

German Corporate Governance Code (2020), p. 2.

The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), p. 6.

The Dutch Corporate Governance Code (2016), p. 8.

The Swedish Corporate Governance Code (2020), p. 2.

(Portuguese) Corporate Governance Code (2018), p. 11.

The 2020 Belgian Code on Corporate Governance (2020), p. 3; (Croatia) Corporate Governance Code (2019), p. 6; The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), 4; The Dutch Corporate Governance Code (2016), 7.

Austrian Code of Corporate Governance (2020), p. 9; The 2020 Belgian Code on Corporate Governance (2020), p. 3; The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), 4; The Dutch Corporate Governance Code (2016), 7.

Austrian Code of Corporate Governance (2020), p. 9; The Dutch Corporate Governance Code (2016), 7; (Spain) Good Governance Code of Listed Companies (2020), p. 9.

The 2020 Belgian Code on Corporate Governance (2020), p. 3; The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), 4.

The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), 4.

OECD Code (2015), IV.

OECD Code (2015), V. A.

OECD Code (2015), VI. D. 6.

OECD Code (2015), VI C.

UK Code (2018), Provision 18.

UK Code (2018), Principle P.

Italian Corporate Governance Code (2020), Principle I.

Italian Corporate Governance Code (2020), Principle XV.

Italian Corporate Governance Code (2020), Principle XIII.

(Spain) Good Governance Code of Listed Companies (2020), Recommendation 12, p. 25.

Ibidem.

Austrian Code of Corporate Governance (2020), Preamble; The 2020 Belgian Code On Corporate Governance (2020), §2.1, 2.2; German Corporate Governance Code (2020), p. 2; The Dutch Corporate Governance Code (2016), §1.1.1; and The Swedish Corporate Governance Code (2020), Principle 3.

Corporate governance code of listed corporations (2018), §1, §24.1.1 and §12.1.

The Dutch Corporate Governance Code (2016), §1.1.1, v) and vi).

(Denmark) Recommendations on Corporate Governance (2019), § 2.2.

(Bulgarian) National Corporate Governance Code (2016), §42.

(Malta) The Code of Principles of Good Corporate Governance, Principle 12.

(Malta) The Code of Principles of Good Corporate Governance, Supporting Principles under Principle 12.

The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), Principle 9; and (Spain) Good Governance Code of Listed Companies (2020), III.3.5.

(Spain) Good Governance Code of Listed Companies (2020), III.3.5.

The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), Guideline under Recommendation 9.4.

OECD Corporate Governance Code (2015), 9.

See Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) Secretariat, The review process of the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, 24 September 2015.

OECD Corporate Governance Code (2015), IV. A.

OECD Corporate Governance Code (2015), IV. E.

OECD Corporate Governance Code (2015), IV. C.

OECD Corporate Governance Code (2015), IV. A, B, E.

OECD Corporate Governance Code (2015), IV. C, D.

OECD Corporate Governance Code (2015), IV. C.

OECD Corporate Governance Code (2015), VI C.

(repres) Good Governance Code of Listed Companies (2020), Recommendation 12.

(Bulgarian) National Corporate Governance Code (2016), §38; The Dutch Corporate Governance Code (2016), p. 8.

(Croatian) Corporate Governance Code (2019), p. 23.

Slovenian Corporate Governance Code for Listed Companies (2016), p. 7.

(Croatian) Corporate Governance Code (2019), p. 23.

Corporate Governance Code for Slovakia (2016), p. 17.

Slovenian Corporate Governance Code for Listed Companies (2016), p. 7.

Corporate Governance Code for Slovakia (2016), p. 17.

(Bulgarian) National Corporate Governance Code (2016), §38.

(Bulgarian) National Corporate Governance Code (2016), §39; The (Lithuanian) Corporate Governance Code for the Companies Listed on NASDAQ OMX Vilnius (2010), Principe 9.1; (Croatian) Corporate Governance Code (2019), p. 23; Corporate Governance Code for Slovakia (2016), p. 17.

(Bulgarian) National Corporate Governance Code (2016), §42–43, (Czech) Corporate Governance Code based on the OECD Principles (2004), p. 18; The (Lithuanian) Corporate Governance Code for the Companies Listed on NASDAQ OMX Vilnius (2010), Principle 9.3; Slovenian Corporate Governance Code For Listed Companies (2016), p. 8; The (Maltese) Code Of Principles Of Good Corporate Governance, Principle 4.

Corporate Governance Code for Slovakia (2016), p. 18, (Czech) Corporate Governance Code based on the OECD Principles (2004), p. 18.

The (Lithuanian) Corporate Governance Code for the Companies Listed on NASDAQ OMX Vilnius (2010), Principle 9.2, Corporate Governance Code for Slovakia (2016), p. 17.; Slovenian Corporate Governance Code for Listed Companies (2016), p. 8.

Slovenian Corporate Governance Code for Listed Companies (2016), p. 8.

Corporate Governance Code for Slovakia (2016), p. 17.

Slovenian Corporate Governance Code for Listed Companies (2016), p. 10.

Hellenic Corporate Governance Code for Listed Companies (2013), p. 30.

OECD Code (2015), VI.G.

OECD Code (2015), IV.D.

UK Code (2018), Provision 5.

This is the case for Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Spain, Greece, Ireland, and Portugal. See Conchon, A., Board-level employee representation rights in Europe. Facts and trends. Report 121, ETUI (2011). See also: https://​www.​worker-participation.​eu/​National-Industrial-Relations/​Across-Europe/​Board-level-Representation.

It should be noted that—in relation to Poland, Ireland, and Portugal—board level representation is limited to some state-owned or municipally-owned companies.

Latvia, Lithuania, Malta.

Corporate Governance Code for Slovakia (2016), p. 27; The (Maltese) Code of Principles Of Good Corporate Governance, Principle 6.

German Corporate Governance Code (2019), Recommendation A.2; The Dutch Corporate Governance Code (2016), §2.6.1.; Corporate Governance Code for Slovakia (2016), p. 18; (Lithuanian) The Corporate Governance Code for the Companies Listed on NASDAQ OMX Vilnius (2010), §9.2.

(Latvian) Principles of Corporate Governance and Recommendations on Their Implementation (2010), §10.1.

In particular, the annual remuneration policy should compare the compensation of the board of directors and managing director to the development of the average remuneration of employees, and the remuneration policy should specify how the terms and conditions of the company’s employees’ salaries and employment relationships have been taken into account. See Finnish Corporate Governance Code 2020 (2020), p. 68; Hellenic Corporate Governance Code for Listed Companies, p. 32; Corporate governance code of listed corporations (2018), § 24.3.3.

(Hungarian) Corporate Governance Recommendations, 2018, § 1.6.1; Slovenian Corporate Governance Code For Listed Companies (2016), §29.2; Corporate Governance Code for Slovakia (2016), p. 21.

OECD Code (2015), VI.E.4.

UK Code (2018), Principle J.

UK Code (2018), Provision 23.

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures, COM(2012)614 final, available at: https://​eur-lex.​europa.​eu/​LexUriServ/​LexUriServ.​do?​uri=​COM:​2012:​0614:​FIN:​en:​PDF.

EU Commission, 2019 Report on equality between women and men in the EU, https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​info/​sites/​info/​files/​aid_​development_​cooperation_​fundamental_​rights/​annual_​report_​ge_​2019_​en_​1.​pdf.

In Italy, even though both one-tier and two-tier governance models are accepted and can be adopted by companies, the prevailing corporate governance structure is the so-called traditional structure, composed by a board of directors (consiglio di amministrazione) and a board of statutory auditors (collegio sindacale), both appointed by the shareholders’ meeting. See Melis, A. (2000). “Corporate Governance in Italy”. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 8(4) (October). Available at SSRN: https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​238590.

(Italian) Corporate Governance Code (2020), Recommendation 8.

Austrian Code of Corporate Governance (2020), §52.

The Dutch Corporate Governance Code (2016), §2.1.5.

German Corporate Governance Code (2020), Principle 11.

Spanish) Good Governance Code of Listed Companies (2020), p. 27.

OECD Code (2015), VI. 6.

(Spanish) Good Governance Code of Listed Companies (2020), Recommendation 53; The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), Recommendation 9.3, Guideline 2; (Denmark) Recommendations on Corporate Governance (2019), p. 22.

(Spanish) Good Governance Code of Listed Companies (2020), Recommendation 53.

«Every company having net worth of rupees five hundred crore or more, or turnover of rupees one thousand crores or more or a net profit of rupees five crores or more during any financial year…», §135, Companies Act (2013).

See KPMS, India’s CSR Reporting Survey 2019, February 2020, available at: https://​home.​kpmg/​in/​en/​home/​insights/​2020/​02/​india-s-csr-reporting-survey-2019.​html.

OECD Code (2015), VI. D. 4.

UK Code (2018), Principle P.

UK Code (2018), Provision 41.

Directive 2007/36/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2017/828 as regards the encouragement of long-term shareholder engagement. See also Communication from the Commission, Guidelines on the standardised presentation of the remuneration report under Directive 2007/36/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2017/828 as regards the encouragement of long-term shareholder engagement.

EU Commission, Consultation Document. Consultation on the Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy, April 2020, Question n. 40.

Velte, Patrick. (2016). Sustainable Management Compensation and ESG Performance—The German Case. Problems and Perspectives in Management. 14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​21511/​ppm.​14(4).​2016.​02; Hong, B., Li, Z., & Minor, D. (2016). “Corporate Governance and Executive Compensation for Corporate Social Responsibility”. Journal of Business Ethics, 136, 199–213.

The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), Recommendation 9.3, Guideline 1.

Corporate governance code of listed corporations (2018), § 24.1.1.

Principle XV, Italian Corporate Governance Code (2020).

See ESMA, Report Enforcement and regulatory activities of European enforcers in 2019 (April 2020) and Alliance for Corporate Transparency, 2019 Research Report: An analysis of the sustainability reports of 1000 companies pursuant to the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive (February 2020).

OECD Code (2015), V.A. 1-2.

UK Code (2018), Provision 1.

EU Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth, COM (2018) 97 final (March 2018).

The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), Principle 9 and Recommendation 9.1.

The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), Guideline under Principle 9.

The Swedish Corporate Governance Code (2020), Rule 10.4.

Corporate Governance Code for Slovakia (2016), Section VI, A.2.i.

The Dutch Corporate Governance Code (2016), Best Practice Provision 1.1.1., Section VI.

Some requirements are included only in the related guidelines. See Communication from the Commission—guidelines on non-financial reporting (methodology for reporting non-financial information).

OECD Code (2015), VI. C.

OECD Code (2015), VI. 6.

OECD Code (2015), VI. 7.

OECD Code (2015), VI. 6.

OECD Code (2015), V. A. 2.

UK Code, Provision 25.

The Bulgarian Code defines an ‘ethical code of conduct’ as “a set of moral and ethical norms, principles and standards of conduct”. (Bulgaria) National Corporate Governance Code (2016), p. 4.

The 2020 Belgian Code on Corporate Governance (2020), Recommendation 2.18; (Bulgaria) National Corporate Governance Code (2016), p. 4; The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), Recommendation 2.3, Guideline 3; Corporate Governance Code for Slovakia (2016), V, C; The Dutch Corporate Governance Code (2016), § 2.5.2.

The X Principles of Corporate Governance of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (2017), Principle 5; Corporate governance code of listed corporations (2018), § 20.

See Sjåfjell, B. (2016). “When the Solution Becomes the Problem: The Triple Failure of Corporate Governance Codes”, in J.J. Du Plessis and C.K. Low (eds.), Corporate Governance Codes for the 21st Century: International Perspectives and Critic, 23–55; and Szabó, D.G., & Sørensen, K.E. (2013). “Integrating Corporate Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance Codes in the EU”. European Business Law Review, 24(6), 781–828.

However, it should be noted that the Irish Corporate Governance Annex just integrates the main applicable corporate governance code in Ireland, i.e., the UK Corporate Governance Code.