Fostering a strong corporate culture and how to adhere to human rights regulations?

Many believe that a homogeneous board is more efficient, and in terms of time and discussion, it will be. With the same background and similar experience, everyone will most likely and rather quickly agree on a course of action. However, the more complex the question, the less effective such efficiency will likely be. We need a diversity of competencies, experiences, perspectives, and mentalities to ensure that we have a proper and thorough discussion of the strategic choices before us. For example, what happens to a typical group of even well-intentioned Baby Boomer men if we introduce female stakeholders from Generation Z or Millenials in the decision-making group? Their focus and input will most likely differ significantly from the former in regard to environmental impact, social equity and justice issues. I have no doubt that this new group will make a totally different choice.

We want stakeholders in the company to be invested in what we do. EU regulations encourage shareholders to be more involved in the firm's direction of travel, its integrity, and its effectiveness regarding ESG. Some investors like the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global are vocal in what they expect from the companies they invest in, others prefer simply to vote with their feet, selling and buying shares reactively instead. Dedicating time and effort to engage with shareholders is important and ensures that both sides' expectations are understood and met.

Many stakeholders impact long-term success. Employee engagement leads to higher productivity and loyalty. Engaged suppliers and distributors help form more stable and reliable partnerships. Finally, perhaps the most important is understanding the expectations of, and winning loyalty amongst, customers. Attracting and retaining customers is why marketing is increasingly focused on “stories” that explain how the company, its products and activities impact the environment and its social surroundings.

Unfortunately, some firms believe that creating "illusions" of ESG-friendly impact is enough. In the medium to long-term, a lack of authenticity will evidence itself, and the effect on reputation and customer loyalty will be dire – especially concerning the younger segment of the firm's "Super-consumers" going forward.

Managing corporate culture is a critical strategic objective. The larger the company, the more intricate the challenge; while the smaller the company, the less common it is that culture is given a strategic importance. The aim is to have a culture that serves the firm's strategic objectives. For instance, what degree of risk appetite or experimentation is acceptable?

In a bank group, you cannot have subsidiaries adhering to different cultures – managing, maintaining oversight, and ensuring compliance would be impossible. Consequently, strategic culture is determined by the parent company. Every behaviour and performance, including the organization's dedication to ESG, is influenced by culture. In Luxembourg, most banks are affiliated with foreign ownership. Spuerkeess and Banque Raiffeisen are significant exceptions. Consequently, for most banks in Luxembourg, managing culture means focusing on compliance with a strategic culture and policy framework decided upon elsewhere. The boards of foreign-owned banks have a role in promoting and protecting the culture that best serves its Luxembourg entity but have minimal room for manoeuvre.

Spuerkeess is in a particular situation. Government-owned, it must safeguard its independence from political influence, yet maintain its own high sense of responsibility for its social impact in Luxembourg. It is an AA+ institution and Luxembourg's premier savings bank, requiring integrity and predictability. In this way, it will distinguish itself from other banks.