It's a little to be discouraged. The fuss over the now withdrawn extreme salary increase of a top banker makes truths visible again that we've actually been seeing for ten years. Nevertheless, it remains necessary to share these messages each time. Let me put two of those near open doors again.
1. Banks partly have a public function and therefore have to align their decisions with social (and thus political) sentiments.
It shows an incomprehensible arrogance and total incomprehension of both the top banker in question and his supervisory board that they have still not sufficiently understood this basic notion. If you already have no sense of responsible and ethically acceptable wage relationships within your own organization, then as a bank you should at least realize that as a semi-public institution you are permanently under the social and therefore political magnifying glass. This reputational damage also reduces your shareholder value, so if that were your only guideline (which you can't hope for in banks), then this whole process is of course an ultimate license of inability.
2. The government cannot solve the lack of moral awareness of banks with even more regulation.
In Trouw of 14 March, Professor Wim Dubbink put it as follows: "Police does not know how to find a way to morality other than laying down rules. The paradoxical consequence is that morality is pushed further and further to the edge." More government does not solve the problem of amoral or even immoral market. Society itself, we as active citizens and our social connections also have a role to play and are therefore partly responsible. Quite a massive withdrawal of bank accounts is a useful signal. Trade unions and participation within companies could also be more important. And moral awareness and moral dialogue should be given a more important place in education, in the media and in society. Socires as a think tank, try to make a contribution to this from our project "Finance for the Common Good'.