welt.de
Deutsche Bank to Resume In-Person Annual General Meeting in 2026
Deutsche Bank announced its plan to resume in-person Annual General Meetings in 2026 after holding virtual meetings since 2019, citing shareholder concerns about communication in the virtual format while acknowledging the cost and environmental advantages of online meetings.
- What are the key factors driving Deutsche Bank's decision to return to in-person Annual General Meetings after several years of virtual meetings?
- Deutsche Bank will hold its first in-person Annual General Meeting (AGM) since 2019 in 2026. The 2025 AGM will be held online, allowing shareholders to ask questions live via video conference. This decision follows years of virtual AGMs, driven by cost savings and reduced environmental impact.
- How do shareholder representatives view the effectiveness of virtual AGMs compared to in-person meetings, and what are their recommendations for future practice?
- While virtual AGMs offer cost and environmental benefits, shareholder representatives like Ingo Speich criticize the lack of communication and lively exchange compared to in-person meetings. This concern is particularly relevant when significant decisions, such as supervisory board changes or new compensation models, are on the agenda.
- What are the potential long-term implications of this shift towards hybrid or in-person AGMs for shareholder engagement and corporate governance in Germany and beyond?
- Deutsche Bank's return to in-person AGMs in 2026 suggests a shift in response to shareholder concerns regarding communication and engagement. The hybrid model proposed by some may offer a compromise, balancing cost-effectiveness with the benefits of direct shareholder interaction for crucial decisions.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the return to in-person meetings as a significant event, highlighting the Deutsche Bank's announcement and the opinions of those who favor in-person meetings. The critical views of virtual meetings are presented prominently. While acknowledging the advantages of virtual meetings, the framing suggests a positive shift towards the in-person format, potentially influencing reader perception.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and factual. However, the inclusion of direct quotes from those who advocate for in-person meetings might subtly shape reader perception. For example, the description of virtual meetings as having a "stiff format" and criticism as "verhallt" (fading away) implies negativity. Neutral alternatives could be to describe the communication style as "formal" and criticism as "less easily communicated.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the Deutsche Bank's decision to return to in-person shareholder meetings and the opinions of key stakeholders regarding virtual vs. in-person formats. However, it omits discussion of the potential benefits of virtual meetings for smaller shareholders who may find it difficult or expensive to attend in-person meetings. Additionally, the long-term financial implications of choosing one format over the other for the bank are not explored. While these omissions might be due to space constraints, they limit the article's comprehensive analysis of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by primarily framing the debate as in-person versus virtual shareholder meetings. It does mention a preference for a hybrid model from some stakeholders, but this option is not given equal weight in the discussion. The nuanced possibilities of a hybrid approach that combines the benefits of both formats are not fully explored.
Gender Bias
The article uses gender-neutral language ("Aktionärinnen und Aktionäre") appropriately, avoiding gender bias in its terminology. However, it doesn't provide data on the gender composition of the attendees or the board members, which could offer a fuller picture of gender representation within the company and its shareholder base.
Sustainable Development Goals
The Deutsche Bank's return to in-person shareholder meetings in 2026, after holding virtual meetings during the pandemic, presents a mixed impact on responsible consumption and production. While virtual meetings reduce environmental impact due to lower travel, the return to in-person events could increase carbon emissions. The decision reflects a balance between stakeholder preferences (some prefer in-person meetings) and environmental considerations.