Overview and Substantive Rigor Index for all 27 EU Member States. The index scores 14 binary governance provisions from each code. All 27 require remuneration policy disclosure and pay-for-performance linkage. Twelve codes address clawback; twelve cap variable pay. Code length does not predict rigor: Ireland scores 12 out of 14 in 4,678 words while the Czech Republic scores 8 in 27,172 words.
The Substantive Rigor Index
14 binary governance provisions scored across all 27 EU Member States — how much does each code explicitly commit to?
Substantive Rigor Index (0–14) — all 27 Member States, ranked
Methodology: Following La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer & Vishny (1998). Fourteen binary dummy variables (0/1) scored per country from code text only (most recent version, March 2026). Score = 1 if explicit provision present; 0 if silent — regardless of what national statute or EU directives separately require. The 14 provisions: (1) minimum independence quota ≥⅓ or ½; (2) independence criteria beyond statute; (3) tenure/cooling-off limits on independence; (4) CEO/Chair separation; (5) audit committee defined; (6) nomination committee defined; (7) remuneration committee defined; (8) remuneration policy disclosure; (9) clawback or malus; (10) pay-for-performance linkage; (11) variable pay caps; (12) say-on-pay; (13) stakeholder/purpose orientation; (14) ESG/sustainability in board duties. Index = unweighted sum (range 0–14).
Sources: National corporate governance codes, all 27 EU Member States, English-language versions, March 2026. Prof. Marco Ventoruzzo, Bocconi University.
Show full Rigor Index data table (27 countries)
| Country | Legal family | Rigor score (0–14) | Code last revised | Word count |
|---|
Code length by word count for all 27 EU member states. Finland has the longest code at 29,468 words; Ireland the shortest at 4,678. Word count is a proxy for structural complexity, not quality or rigor. The scatter of rigor scores against word counts shows no meaningful correlation.
How Long Is Your Code?
Word count of English-language versions as a proxy for structural complexity — codes range from 4,678 words (Ireland) to 29,468 (Finland)
Code length by word count — all 27 EU Member States, ranked
Note: Word counts based on English-language versions. Some are official translations; others are original English texts. Different languages have varying degrees of verbosity, so absolute counts are not perfectly comparable across countries — but the relative order of magnitude remains meaningful. Finland's code includes extensive commentary and guidelines alongside its recommendations.
Source: National corporate governance codes, English-language versions, March 2026.
Show code length data table (27 countries)
| Country | Word count | Rigor score (0–14) | Words per rigor point |
|---|
Committees heatmap showing how each EU member state's governance code addresses five types of board committee: Audit, Nomination, Remuneration, Risk and ESG/Sustainability. Cells are coded Recommended, Mentioned or Silent. Audit, nomination and remuneration committees are recommended by nearly all codes. Risk committees are more varied. ESG/Sustainability committees are explicitly recommended by only France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Italy's combined committee structure.
The Committees Heatmap
How EU-27 governance codes address five types of board committee — across all 27 Member States
Coding: "Recommended" = code explicitly recommends or requires the committee. "Mentioned" = referenced as optional, conditional, or in disclosure context only. "Silent" = not addressed. "Audit" includes control-and-risk committees where the code combines audit and risk oversight (e.g. Italy's Comitato Controllo e Rischi, coded as Audit and Risk recommended). Sweden's nomination committee is a shareholder body rather than a board subcommittee, but is included as the code explicitly requires it. "ESG/Sustainability" captures only dedicated sustainability or CSR committees explicitly recommended or contemplated by the code; general ESG integration into board duties without a dedicated committee recommendation is coded as silent.
Sources: National corporate governance codes, March 2026. Analysis: Prof. Marco Ventoruzzo, Bocconi University.
Executive pay rules in EU governance codes. 12 of 27 codes explicitly address clawback or malus provisions, including Belgium (corrected from the original dataset per Provision 7.12 of the 2020 Belgian Code). 12 of 27 codes set explicit caps on variable remuneration. The two groups overlap only partially: 7 countries have both, 5 have only clawback, 5 have only caps, and 10 have neither. This reflects different governance philosophies — ex ante control via caps versus ex post recovery via clawback.
Show Me the Money
How EU-27 governance codes diverge on constraining executive pay — two key provisions with only partial overlap between adopting countries
Does the code require or recommend provisions allowing recovery of variable remuneration already paid (clawback) or reduction of unvested pay (malus)?
Does the code set explicit maximum limits on variable remuneration — as absolute amounts, a percentage or multiple of fixed pay, or caps on termination payments?
Overlap between clawback and variable pay cap provisions — 27 Member States
Correction — Belgium: The original PDF dataset coded Belgium as silent on clawback. This has been corrected to YES, reflecting Provision 7.12 of the 2020 Belgian Corporate Governance Code, which explicitly addresses malus and clawback arrangements. This raises the total from 11 to 12 member states with explicit clawback/malus provisions.
Scoring: Scored 1 if the code contains an explicit provision; 0 if silent — regardless of what the Companies Act or the EU Shareholder Rights Directive II may separately require.
Sources: National corporate governance codes, March 2026. Analysis: Prof. Marco Ventoruzzo, Bocconi University.
Show pay rules data table (27 countries)
| Country | Clawback / Malus | Variable Pay Cap | Both | Neither |
|---|
Two independence dimensions across all 27 codes. On quotas: most codes require at least half of the board to be independent; Portugal and Poland require below half or a fixed minimum; Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria use vague language or no minimum. On definition strictness (1–5): Belgium, France, Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia score Very Strict (5). Bulgaria and Slovakia score Minimal (1).
How Independent Is Independent?
Two dimensions: the minimum quota codes require, and how strictly they define what "independent" actually means
Independence definition strictness (1–5) — all 27 Member States, ranked
Definition strictness criteria (1–5): Qualitative coding of the independence definition clauses in each code. Criteria weighted: enumeration of bright-line disqualifiers vs. principles-based language; tenure caps and their length; cooling-off windows for executives, employees and auditors; coverage of controlling-shareholder and affiliate relationships; cross-directorship and family-tie bars; shareholding thresholds. Where a code defers its independence definition to statute or company by-laws, this lowers the score. Very Strict (5): comprehensive enumerated bright-line criteria with tenure cap, multiple cooling-off windows, and controlling-shareholder coverage. Strict (4): enumerated criteria with tenure cap and solid cooling-off windows but some flexibility or partial deferral. Moderate (3): enumerated criteria but indicators-based rather than bright-line, or missing a tenure cap. Light (2): minimal code-level criteria or broad deferral to statute or company discretion. Minimal (1): no code-level definition.
Quota categories: Half or more = code prescribes at least ½ independent members for the primary case; Below half / fixed minimum = lower proportional floor (e.g. ⅓ or ¼) or an absolute minimum number; Vague or no minimum = qualitative language (e.g. "sufficient", "adequate") or deference to law/by-laws.
Sources: National corporate governance codes, March 2026. Analysis: Prof. Marco Ventoruzzo, Bocconi University.
ESG and stakeholder language intensity scored 1 to 5 across all 27 codes. Italy and Netherlands score 5. Portugal, France, Croatia, Denmark, Finland and Slovenia score 4. Bulgaria, Slovakia, Malta and Hungary score 1. Vocabulary shift analysis: in codes revised after 2020, the word sustainability rose from 5 to 146 occurrences; reporting from 64 to 298; chair from 10 to 233. The words collegial, binding and commercial declined sharply. Neither CO2 emissions nor inequality (Gini coefficient) correlate with ESG score.
ESG & The Language of Governance
How deeply ESG and stakeholder language is embedded in each code — and how EU governance vocabulary transformed after 2020
ESG / stakeholder language intensity (1–5) — all 27 Member States, ranked
Old Words vs. New Words — how EU governance vocabulary shifted after 2020
ESG scoring (1–5): 1 = no or negligible ESG language; 5 = sustainability as the code's organising principle, with explicit stakeholder duty integrated into strategy, risk, remuneration and reporting. Scores derived from qualitative coding of code texts.
Vocabulary shift: Frequency analysis of 17 EU codes revised after 2020 compared with codes from before 2020. Stop words and structural terms (e.g. board, company, recommendation) excluded. Source: frequency analysis of national codes.
CO₂ data: JRC/IEA EDGAR database, in Crippa et al., GHG Emissions of All World Countries, EUR 40020, European Commission 2024.
Gini data: World Bank Development Indicators, most recent available year per country.
Sources: National corporate governance codes, March 2026. Analysis: Prof. Marco Ventoruzzo, Bocconi University.
Show ESG scores data table (27 countries)
| Country | ESG score (1–5) | CO₂ per capita (tonnes) | Gini coefficient |
|---|