Rechenschaft und Transparenz als zentraler Teil der Governance oder als Selbstzweck?

The title of the essay is: "Accountability and Transparency as a function of governance or a function which ends in themselves?" Without transparency good corporate governance is not possible, since only informed decisions are dutiful decisions. Both, the general assembly of shareholders and the board must make decisions which are only possible if transparency is given. For example, for most resolutions which relate to equity, the general assembly is competent. In this situation, a correct decision is only possible, if the general assembly is informed. However, the shareholders (other than the board members) are not required to respect the business secrets. The level of transparency is therefore different for the board members and the general assembly. The board members have access to all information, whereby the information rights of the shareholders are restricted. Accountability can be divided into preventive and repressive accountability. The preventive accountability has a prophylactic function. The board member as agent is informed and thus able to make dutiful decisions. The repressive accountability has the function to support the principal in a liability action against the agents/board members. The repressive accountability has also a preventive function. Legal assumptions support the claimant if the board has not established the required transparency. Accountability and transparency are certainly not functions which end in themselves, but remain imperative for a functioning corporate governance.