Miriam van Dongen: ‘We need to recalibrate our supervision’
Since 2008, Miriam van Dongen has combined supervisory positions at Achmea, Optiver and the Land Registry, among others. She added Rabobank and TNO in 2024; she chairs the audit committee at both organizations. Her message in a conversation with Nyenrode professor of corporate governance Jeroen Veldman: the current era, with a rapidly changing environment and fast and often unexpected developments, calls for agility and a shift in the way in which supervisory directors fulfil their role. ‘We need to recalibrate our supervision and dare to place our role in a new context. The classic supervisory role remains important, but more emphasis should be placed on the advisory role.’
The BANI model (Brittle, Anxious, Non-linear, Incomprehensible) developed by British futurist Jamais Cascio is not only a tool for understanding the complexity of the modern world but, according to Van Dongen, it also provides a framework for the supervisory board to enter into a structured dialogue with each other and with the board of directors about everything that is going on. ‘Take the CrowdStrike incident last year, where a single erroneous update led to large-scale IT disruptions and billions in damage worldwide. That shows how brittle – fragile – our infrastructure is. For us as a supervisory board this means that we need to look even more closely at systemic dependencies and vulnerabilities. We need to challenge the board to not only organize efficiently and robustly, but also flexibly, for example by investing in backup systems and diversifying of suppliers. At the same time, I think it is important that we not only ask critical questions about how risk management is set up for these chain reactions, but that we also offer support and exude optimism. The board needs to feel the space to move forward, rather than the second element of the BANI model leading to stagnation, which is anxiety caused by the fact that you have limited information and every decision can have an unpredictable consequence. That could lead to decision paralysis: indecision and procrastination. That must be avoided. In a time of major changes, you have to move and adjust. As supervisory directors, we must be empathetic and create an open and transparent culture in the boardroom, in which uncertainty can be named and mistakes used to learn from.’
How do you address that in practice, for example, when dealing also with the non-linear element of the BANI model?
‘As boards and supervisory directors, we cannot predict black swans. We do not know which rare and unpredictable events will have a major impact. Cause and effect do not always follow each other logically and small triggers can have a disproportionate effect. Think of the GameStop share that skyrocketed in 2021 due to an action by a group of Reddit users, who used that social media platform to persuade thousands of individuals to buy shares with the result that the hedge funds that gambled on a stock price drop suffered billions in losses. One of those funds ultimately went under. As supervisory directors, we now must be extra alert to such unexpected developments by more often discussing possibilities and whether our systems can absorb such unexpected shocks. We must therefore work together to increase risk awareness and place even more emphasis on scenario thinking. As a supervisory board, you must continue to assess whether broad non-financial risks are included in the risk models and are being sufficiently considered in decision-making.’
How do you deal with the different horizons in this volatile world? For example, what time frame do you focus on when investing?
‘That is the challenge. How can you set your horizon if things can happen so much faster than expected? That touches on the concept of incomprehensible from the BANI model: so much is happening at once or unexpectedly and it is so complex that sometimes we simply cannot understand or oversee it. Even when information exists, it is difficult to determine what horizon is relevant. Look at generative AI, which is specialized to perform specific tasks. The next step is AGI, artificial general intelligence, where the system itself is capable of reasoning and problem solving and thus can in fact perform the intellectual tasks of humans – and perhaps even better. Optimistic experts think that it will take until 2030, others talk about further in future. According to Elon Musk, it will be as soon as next year.
For business operations, this means including different horizons in the scenarios. Also, emotion AI, which can already recognize human emotions, simulate or even infer preferences, will continue to develop. That could have unpredictable consequences, depending on the data the system is trained and fed with. We need to think about this now and establish ethical frameworks for it. After all, as supervisory board members, we represent the ethical and moral compass of the organization.’
You mentioned at the beginning of this conversation the shift in the role of the supervisory director, with more emphasis towards the advisory role. While many supervisory board members say they hardly get around to the advisory role because of all the laws and regulations.
‘I recognize this, the pressure of laws and regulations is only increasing. The classic supervisory role remains important, but much of it can be discussed in depth in the audit or risk committee, for example. If you use that as input for the supervisory role of the supervisory board, you create space for the advisory role. I believe that in these uncertain times, directors need a sparring partner who thinks along with them and thinks ahead. Retrospective assessment remains necessary, but the dialogue beforehand is very important.’
Do supervisory board members bring enough knowledge to be more strategic and future focused?
‘The fact is that as a supervisory board member you cannot know and understand everything, even though you have to make decisions. This means you sometimes, when it is impossible to see the whole picture, need to take a calculated risk based on experience and intuition. And why it is all the more important to open ourselves up to new insights from outside our own circle. We must expand our knowledge and continue to develop content. Overview requires significant insight. Complex and technical issues such as geopolitics, AI & digitization, cyber, climate & energy transition require in-depth knowledge and continuous education.
Do we perhaps need larger supervisory boards to cover all the necessary knowledge?
‘A larger board is not the solution. Especially in this time of rapid change, I would find it more interesting to look at the composition of the supervisory board. You are now appointed for four years and usually reappointed for another four years. Reappointment is not automatic, but about the board member adding continued value. I wonder if the composition of the supervisory board should not change more often and more quickly now that the world is changing so fast, so that the profile of the joint board is better and more agile to the issues at hand. Today’s issues are different from those of four years ago, and in four years they will be different from today. Perhaps you should appoint a quarter of your supervisory board members for a maximum of four years and then replace them. Then you can bring in the expertise that is needed at that time, with greater ease. It would perhaps be quite nice if the Corporate Governance Code Monitoring Committee included that subject in a subsequent review of the code.’
In the current geopolitical context, we see that government measures in the United States have a global impact. How should you deal with that as a company with business in both Europe and the United States, for example?
‘That is very complicated. In Europe, diversity and sustainability are central, and companies consider this strategically and morally necessary. We do not want our policy in this area to be dictated by what is currently happening in the United States. European companies operating in the United States must comply with the legislation there as well as in Europe, with the dilemma that these laws conflict. It goes to show that reality is not always black and white and that as a supervisory board member you have to navigate with wisdom.
Should there be a separate supervisory board committee for such geopolitical issues?
‘I am not really in favor of extra committees. Moreover, I find this topic so important, strategic, and complex that it belongs in the entire supervisory board. You need the intelligence, experience, and commitment of the entire board. I am also a great advocate of international supervisory board members on a board. They bring a completely different perspective on what is happening in the world.
Geopolitical themes are also high on the agenda of audit and risk committees. It is important to quantify the impact and translate it into the balance sheet, capital, funding, provisions and liquidity, among other things. Furthermore, in these committees we look at the ranges in the risk models, the scenarios that underlie them and the continuous recalibration of these. If you look at ‘liberation day’ (as US President Donald Trump called 2 April 2025, the day he announced ‘reciprocal import tariffs’, ed.) and again a few months down the road, the situation is very different again, so you have to keep continuously calculating your scenarios and adjusting the variables.’
When uncertainty increases, people tend to become more involved in a company. How do you give all stakeholders a place in this era?
‘As supervisory board members, we represent both the company and the stakeholders. We will have to actively identify and analyze all these stakeholders for influence and importance and then enter into a constructive dialogue and consultation with them. I expect that in the future we will interpret the term stakeholder even more broadly than we do now. For example, consider technology partners that are so crucial to the company that they become a strategic stakeholder. A sector can also be a stakeholder, such as the energy sector, where financial institutions are expected to contribute to the fundability of the energy transition.’
What role do external supervisors play? What would you like to see from them?
‘They too must exercise their supervision in an increasingly volatile world and therefore think ahead, explore scenarios and engage with the companies under their supervision about resilience. They can contribute hugely through their broad view of social risks and systemic impact. At the same time, I think that external regulators should give space so that companies can respond more quickly to change. The emphasis could be more on a risk-based approach. It also helps companies if regulators provide quick clarity on the application of new rules. That would contribute to being agile in a rapidly changing world and, if necessary, adjusting strategy.’
You have already mentioned a number of competencies of supervisors. What else will be important in the future?
‘Today’s supervisory board member must actually already have the competencies needed in the future. For me, first and foremost is agility: the ability to be flexible within your supervisory and advisory role and to respond quickly to changes. Being strong on content is also high on the list. And then empathy, risk-orientation, scenario-driven, independence, and the ability to provide calm, direction, trust, wisdom and optimism in a rapidly changing world. Of course, not every member of the supervisory board has all these qualities, as long as the collective has them. So, you will have to look even more closely at complementarity within the entire supervisory board. My thought of changing the composition of the supervisory board more quickly could be an answer to that.’
How much fun is it to be a supervisory board member in these uncertain and turbulent times?
‘Precisely because we do not know it all, it is a very interesting time. We have to keep asking ourselves whether we are doing the right things, whether we have enough knowledge and whether we offer sufficient added value to the board of directors. We must dare to normalize ‘not knowing’ and name it when something is difficult or stressful. I do not think a supervisory board should be complacent. My starting point is that the board of directors has the right to a good supervisory board. That implies that we should not only ask critical questions to directors but continue to look just as critically at ourselves and our way of working.’
This interview was published in Management Scope 06 2025.
This article was last changed on 24-06-2025