公司治理的重要组成部分是围绕公司董事责任及其责任的法律框架。中国和德国都建立了全面的法律框架，并遵循类似的原则，然而，中国和德国各自有不同的方式，特别是鉴于2024年7月1日生效的新修订的《中华人民共和国公司法》(“《公司法》”)。本文探讨并比较了中国和德国法律下公司董事责任的基本规定。
A significant component of corporate governance is the legal framework surrounding the responsibilities and with them the liabilities of company directors. Both China and Germany have established comprehensive legal frameworks for that and follow similar principles; however, each in their own approach. Especially in light of the newly revised Company Law of the People’s Republic of China (CL PRC) having taken effect on July 1, 2024, this essay explores and compares the basic provisions of company directors’ liabilities under Chinese and German law.
中国的法律框架
Legal framework in China
在中国，董事的义务和责任主要体现在《公司法》中。该法规定了董事在公司治理方面的职责和义务，以及不当行为的责任。
In China, the responsibilities of company directors are mainly defined in the Company Law. This law includes their duties and their roles regarding corporate governance and liability in case of misconduct.
根据《公司法》第180条，适用于每位董事的基本原则主要是诚信义务、忠实义务和勤勉义务。这意味着董事必须始终以公司的最佳利益为重，并勤勉尽责地行使其权力，还应避免利益冲突，尤其不得利用其职位和权力谋取私利。同时，董事又是公司执行机构董事会的一员，广泛的权力迫使其承担更加严格的义务和责任。
According to Article 180 CL PRC, the underlying principles that shall apply for every director are mainly based on fiduciary duty as well as loyalty and diligence. This means that directors must always act in the best interests of the company and exercise their powers with due diligence. Additionally, conflicts of interest should be avoided, and their positions and powers should especially not be exploited for personal gain. As part of the board of directors which is the executive organ of a company, its expansive authority forces the obligations and liabilities of a director to be stringent.
《公司法》明确规定了董事的具体义务，如催缴出资的义务(《公司法》第51条)，不得利用职权从事贿赂、侵占公司资产等违反对公司忠实义务的行为(《公司法》第181条)，不得利用关联关系损害公司利益(《公司法》第22条)，自我交易需向董事会或股东会报告并经决议通过(《公司法》第182 条)，不得利用职务便利谋取公司商业机会(特定情形除外)(《公司法》第183条)，竞业禁止义务(《公司法》第184条)，以及应要求报告履职情况的义务(《公司法》第80条)。
The specified obligations of a director are explicitly outlined in the Company Law, such as the obligation to call up capital contributions (Article 51 CL PRC), the prohibition to take advantage of their powers in violation of the obligation of loyalty to the company such as embezzlement or bribery(Article 181 CL PRC), the prohibition to take advantage of related-party relationship to damage the company's interests (Article 22 CL PRC), the requirement to report self-dealing transactions to the board of directors or the shareholders' meeting and to obtain an approval by resolution (Article 182 CL PRC), the prohibition to take advantage of their position to pursue business opportunities of the company except under specified circumstances (Article 183 CL PRC), non-competition obligation (Article 184 CL PRC), and the obligation to submit reports on the performance of their duties upon request (Article 80 CL PRC).
董事角色的重要性在其清算职责中尤为明显，新《公司法》第232条明确强调了这一职责。在最近的这次修订之前，《中华人民共和国公司法》(2018年修订)(“旧《公司法》”)第183条规定，有限责任公司的清算组由股东组成，股份有限公司的清算组由董事或者股东大会确定的人员组成。旧《公司法》的规定极易造成有限责任公司的中小股东承担清算失职的责任。而新《公司法》的规定从根本上说可视为对董事勤勉义务的具体编纂。
The significance of the director's role is particularly evident in their liquidation duties, a responsibility now explicitly highlighted by the new Company Law in Article 232. Prior to this recent amendment, Article 183 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (Amended in 2018) stated that the liquidation group of a limited liability company should be formed by the shareholders, while for a company limited by shares, the liquidation group should comprise members appointed by the directors or the board of shareholders. The problem was that this would easily create a situation in which especially small and medium shareholders of limited liability companies had to face liability for failures of liquidation duties. Essentially, the new provision can be seen as a specific codification of the directors’ duty of diligence.
在董事违反法定义务给公司、股东、他人造成损害的情况下，应根据相应的过错承担相应的赔偿责任。尤其需要提出的是，新《公司法》突破了由公司对外承担责任的限制，在董事执行职务给第三人造成损害的情况下，存在故意或者重大过失的，需对外直接承担赔偿责任。如果故意或者重大过失都不适用，则由公司对外承担责任，见《公司法》第191条。
In the case that a director violates the statutory obligations and thus causes damages to the Company, the shareholders or others, he/she shall bear the corresponding liability according to the corresponding fault. In particular, the new Company Law breaks through the limitation of external liability assumed by the company, in the case that the director's execution of duties causes damage to a third party due to his/her intent or gross negligence, he/she shall be directly liable for compensation externally. If neither intent nor gross negligence is applicable, the company shall be held liable, see Article 191 CL PRC.
具体承担责任的类型不仅限于民事责任(如赔偿所造成的任何损失，见《公司法》第51、188、191、192条)，还可延伸至刑事责任(见《公司法》第 179、264条)，具体取决于违规行为的严重程度。
The types of liability are not only limited to civil liability (such as compensations for any losses incurred, see Articles 51, 188, 191, 192 CL PRC) but can also extend to criminal liability (refer to Articles 179, 264 CL PRC), depending on the severity of the breach.
在仔细研究《公司法》第51条(该条规定，董事会未提醒股东按时履行出资义务并因此给公司造成损失的，责任董事应承担赔偿责任)时，必须考虑到《公司法》的司法解释同时规定了高级管理人员的催缴义务。《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国公司法〉若干问题的规定(三)》(2020年修正)第13条第 4 款规定，董事和高级管理人员都有责任催缴出资，但在新的《公司法》下，高级管理人员是否仍有此责任，后续可能要由司法解释来进一步明确。不过，根据《公司法》第53条，在股东非法抽逃出资并给公司造成损失的情况下，负有责任的董事、监事和高级管理人员与抽逃出资的股东之间存在明确的连带责任。
When taking a closer look at Article 51 CL PRC (which states that the responsible director is liable for compensation if the board of directors fails to remind shareholders to fulfill their capital contributions duties on time and if this causes losses to the company), it has to be taken into account that the judicial interpretation of the Company Law stipulates the call up capital contributions obligation of the senior executives in the meantime.Article 13 paragraph 4 of the PRC SPR Provisions (III) (Amended in 2020) specifies that both directors and senior executives are responsible for calling up capital contributions, it may be up to futher judicial interpretation to clarify if senior executives still have this duty under the new Company Law. However, there is definite joint liability between the liable directors, supervisors and senior executives and the withdrawing shareholders according to Article 53 CL PRC in case of illicit withdrawal of capital contributions by shareholders and incurrence of losses to the company.
德国的法律框架
Legal framework in Germany
德国法律也规定了公司董事的义务和责任。然而，中德两国的做法存在主要的制度性差异。
German law also codifies the obligations and liability of company directors. However, there is one main systematic difference between the Chinese and German approach.
中国采用的是集中式规制，有限责任公司和股份有限公司都在中国《公司法》中加以规定，而德国则没有一部全面的"公司法"。相反，这两种不同类型的公司遵循各自的法典，每个法典都对其董事的责任(赔偿责任)进行了规定：股份有限公司遵循"Aktiengesetz"(AktG)，有限责任公司遵循"Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung"(GmbHG)。
While China follows the centralized solution where both the limited liability company (LLC) and the joint stock limited company (JSC) are addressed within the Chinese Company Law, Germany does not have only one comprehensive “company law”. Instead, these two different types of companies follow their own respective codifications that each tailor the responsibilities (and thus also the liability) of their directors: the so-called “Aktiengesetz“ (AktG) for JSCs and the “Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung” (GmbHG) for LLCs.
由于德国股份公司或有限责任公司的公司结构不同，要了解德国"董事"的职责，就必须首先了解德国公司的结构。
Due to the differing structures of German JSC or LLC, an understanding of German company structures is essential in order to understand the roles of a German “director”.
德国公司关于其执行部门的结构
The German company structuresconcerning their executive branches
术语解释
Terminology
由于本文只探讨执行意义上的董事角色，因此本段将只关注与中国的“董事”概念相近的公司执行部门。这个词不能与德国的“Direktor”相混淆，后者只是一个用于描述更具体部门经理的通用术语，因此不是本文的主题。
Since this essay only explores the roles of a director in the executive sense, this paragraph will only focus on the executive company branches that come close to the Chinese idea of a director. This term is not to be confused with the German “Direktor” which is only a general term used to describe managers of more specific divisions, and thus not subject of this essay.
简而言之，中国的董事是董事会成员，负责重要决策和公司管理。德国有限责任公司不存在这样的董事会。相反，董事会的角色主要分为两个管理机构：“Geschäftsführer"(董事总经理)和"Gesellschafter"(股东)。后者任命董事总经理或多位经理，作为主要执行官负责公司的日常运营。然而，由于股东拥有公司，因此他们拥有最终控制权和最高决策能力。他们召集会议，决定董事总经理的任命或解聘，批准并监督公司的重大行动。
In short, the director in China is a member of the board of directors responsible for important decisions and the company’s management. Such a board does not exist in a German LLC. Instead, its role is mainly split into two governance bodies: The “Geschäftsführer” (managing director) and “Gesellschafter” (shareholders). The latter appoint the managing director or multiple manager directors, who will bear the responsibility for the company’s day-to-day operations as the primary executive officer. However, it is the shareholders that have ultimate control and highest decision-making ability since they own the company. They convene to decide the appointing or dismissal of the managing director, to approve and oversee major company actions.
相比之下，德国股份有限公司的结构更为复杂，因此其管理方式与有限责任公司不同。但从本质上讲，主要管理机构的职能与有限责任公司相同，只是任务分配更为分散。治理结构通常包括一个执行董事会("Vorstand")，负责执行公司的各项任务，并由一个监事会("Aufsichtsrat")进行监督，以及一个股东大会("Hauptversammlung")，由与会股东做出重大决策。
In contrast, a German JSC has a more complex structure and is therefore not governed by the same means as in an LLC. However in essence, the main governance serves the same functions as in an LLC but only with a more scattered allocation of tasks. The governance structure typically includes an executive board (“Vorstand”) operating the company’s tasks, which is overseen by a supervisory board (“Aufsichtsrat”), as well as a general meeting (“Hauptversammlung”) where the major decisions are being made by the attending shareholders.
由于有限责任公司的德国股东和董事总经理，或股份有限公司的执行董事会、监事会和股东大会以组合方式履行中方董事的职责，下文将重点讨论各自的责任和义务。
Since a German shareholder and managing director of an LLC, or the executive board, supervisory board and general meetings of a JSC fulfill the roles of a Chinese director in a combinatory way, the following paragraph will focus on the responsibility and liability of each respectively.
德国有限责任公司的责任和义务
Responsibility and liability of a German LLC
德国公司一般都强调其高管人员要承担高标准的责任和义务。有限责任公司德国股东的职责范围在《有限责任公司法》第46条中有法律规定，包括批准财务报表和监督管理层等，但对董事总经理却没有这样的规定。因此，他的责任需要在合同中明确规定，并从他必须遵守的原则中衍生出来。
German companies generally emphasize a high standard of responsibilities and liability for their executive officers. While the scope of duties for the German shareholders of an LLC is legally outlined in § 46 GmbHG, including the approval of financial statements and the oversight of management etc., there is no such definition for the managing director. Thus, his responsibilities will need to be specified in his contract and will be derived from the principles that he has to adhere to.
主要原则是《有限责任公司法》第43条第1款规定的注意义务，其次是忠诚义务，尽管后者没有编入法典，但通过一般法律实践得到广泛认可。这些原则包括遵守法律的责任和信托责任，如以公司的最大利益为重，避免任何可能损害公司的行为，如利益冲突或利用公司资产。此外，董事总经理有义务规划和管理公司，监控流动性和财务状况，尤其是风险管理;持续了解公司的所有重大事项;监督其他总经理、下属员工和第三方。
The main principle is the duty of care outlined in § 43 paragraph 1 GmbHG, followed by the duty of loyalty, although the latter is not codified but widely recognized by means of general legal practice. These principles include the duty to comply with the law and fiduciary duties such as acting in the best interests of the company and refraining from any actions that could harm the company like conflicting interests or exploiting the company's assets. Additionally, the managing director is obliged to plan and manage the company, to monitor liquidity and financial status – especially regarding risk management; to stay continuously informed about all significant matters of the company; and to supervise other managing directors, subordinate employees, and third parties.
在评估董事总经理是否涉嫌违反职责时，商业判断规则起着重要作用。这条不成文的规则规定，董事总经理在商业决策中拥有自由裁量权，也就是说，如果他们能够根据充分的信息，合理地认为自己的决定符合公司的最佳利益，那么就没有违反职责。但是，如果违反了其职责，那么根据《有限责任公司法》第43条第 2 款的规定，董事总经理可能要对由此造成的损失承担责任。
When evaluating the performance of the managing director in suspicion of a breach of their duties, the business judgment rule plays an important role. This unwritten rule dictates that managing directors have discretionary power in business decisions meaning if they could reasonably assume, based on sufficient information, that their decision was in the best interests of the company, there is no breach of duty. However, if it constitutes a breach of his duties, then the managing director can be held liable for incurred damages according to § 43 paragraph 2 GmbHG.
德国股份有限公司的责任和义务
Responsibility and liability of a German JSC
有限责任公司行政部门的职责大多是不成文的，相比之下，德国股份有限公司的《股份有限公司法》则采用了更为严格的法律手段。虽然行使职责的一些指导原则也只是模糊地写在纸上，但某些职责是具体成文的。
In contrast to the mostly unwritten responsibilities of the executive branch in an LLC, the AktG for German JSCs follows a stricter legal approach. While some guiding principles for exercising duties are only vaguely written as well, certain duties are specifically codified.
源自《股份有限公司法》第76条的原则，如合法性原则或以实现股东利益为形式的受托服从原则，即使没有明确提及，也同样适用于股份有限公司。然而，当涉及到具体的执行人员时，《股份有限公司法》则显示了明确的指导方针，例如《股份有限公司法》第53a条规定的中立原则，该条规定执行董事会必须平等对待所有股东。
Principles derived from § 76 AktG like the legality principle or fiduciary obedience in the form of realizing the shareholders’ interests are also valid for JSCs even if not explicitly mentioned. However, when it comes to the specific executives, the Aktiengesetz displays explicit guidelines, such as the principle of neutrality according to § 53a AktG which codifies that the executive board has to treat all shareholders equally.
执行董事会必须遵守的另一项主要原则是注意义务，与《有限责任公司法》不同，《股份有限公司法》第93条对此有详细规定。其中规定，执行董事会必须适用一般谨慎标准，该标准将根据同类型、同规模公司的勤勉尽责经理人的行为来确定。与商业判断规则的应用类似，如果执行董事会能够根据充分的信息合理地认为其决定符合公司的最佳利益，则不会违反义务。
Another main principle that the executive board has to adhere to is the duty of care, which in contrast to the GmbHG is written in detail in § 93 AktG. There, it says that the executive board has to apply a general standard of care which will be determined by how a diligent and conscientious manager of a company of the same type and size would act. Similar to the application of the business judgment rule, the executive board would not commit a breach of duty if they could reasonably assume, based on sufficient information, that their decision was in the best interest of the company.
一般来说，《股份有限公司法》第77条概述了执行董事会 "业务管理 "的广泛任务，其中包括为公司采取的所有事实或法律行动。在《股份有限公司法》第83、88、90-92条中还规定了一些具体职责，如执行股东大会决定的合法措施(《股份有限公司法》第 83 条)、向监事会报告(《股份有限公司法》第 90 条)、保存业务记录并及时发现危及公司生存的事态发展(《股份有限公司法》第 91 条)、报告损失并在损失一半股本时召开股东大会(《股份有限公司法》第 92 条)。根据《股份有限公司法》第88条，执行董事会成员不得经营商业企业、在股份公司的业务部门开展业务或担任其他商业公司的管理机构。
Generally, the broad task of “business management” of the executive board is outlined in § 77 AktG which encompasses every factual or legal action taken for the sake of the company. Some specified duties can be found in §§ 83, 88, 90-92 AktG, such as implementing the lawful measure decided by the general meeting (§ 83 AktG), reporting to the supervisory board (§ 90 AktG), maintaining business records and recognizing developments that endanger the existence of the company in a timely manner(§ 91 AktG), and reporting losses and convene the general meeting in the event of a loss of half of the share capital (§ 92 AktG). According to § 88, board members are prohibited from operating a commercial enterprise, conducting business in the business sector of the stock corporation, or acting as a management body of another commercial company.
根据《股份有限公司法》第93条的规定，如果执行董事会故意或严重疏忽地违反了这些职责，则应共同承担由此造成的损失和损害赔偿责任。不过，如果执行董事会根据《股份有限公司法》第83条执行措施，则可免除责任(《股份有限公司法》第93 条第4款第1句)。
In case of an intentional or grossly negligent breach of these duties, the executive board can be held jointly liable for any incurred losses and damages in accordance with § 93 AktG. However, if the board is executing measures according to § 83 AktG, it is exempt from liability (§ 93 paragraph 4 sentence 1 AktG).
对于监事会成员违反职责的行为，适用《股份有限公司法》第93条，参见《股份有限公司法》第116条。执行董事会成员必须履行勤勉尽责的管理者的职责(见上文)，而监事会成员则应履行勤勉尽责的监督者和顾问的职责。他们的监督和咨询活动必须符合公司的利益，尤其有义务对收到的报告和咨询意见保密。
For breaches of duties of the supervisory board members, § 93 AktG applies accordingly, see § 116 AktG. While the executive board members must exercise the care of a diligent and conscientious manager (see above), supervisory board members owe the care of a diligent and conscientious overseer and advisor. They must align their supervisory and advisory activities with the interests of the company and are particularly obliged to maintain confidentiality about received reports and consultations.
对执行董事会的日常业务进行持续监督并非监事会的职责;相反，监事会应重点关注董事会行为的合法性、正当性、适当性和效率。因此，监事会职责的一个重要部分是防止执行董事会的不当行为，同时还包括积极参与监事会的工作、为执行董事会制定适当的薪酬(《股份有限公司法》第87条第1款)、保持组织的功能性以及对最重要的商业交易进行监督(《股份有限公司法》第116条框架内的法律实践也承认了这一点)。
The ongoing supervision of the day-to-day businesses of the executive board is not the responsibility of the supervisory board; instead, they shall focus on the legality, propriety, appropriateness, and efficiency of the board’s actions. An essential part of the board’s duties is therefore the prevention of misconduct by the executive board, and also spans the duty to actively participate in the board, to set an appropriate remuneration for the executive board (§ 87 paragraph 1 AktG), and to maintain a functional organization as well as an overview of the most important business transactions, as recognized through legal practice within the framework of § 116 AktG.
执行会和监事会都是执行公司事务的主要机构，而股东大会则是股东表达和讨论其关切的平台，是执行部门的基础。特别是在监事会成员和审计师的任命、利润分配、监事会成员薪酬制度的批准以及监事会成员的正式解职等方面，股东大会都能做出最终决定。此外，监事会还负责监督公司章程的修订，管理与资本相关的措施，并有权决定公司的解散。由于它是股东行使权利的平台，因此股东不承担任何责任。
Both the executive and supervisory boards are the main bodies for the execution of company matters, whereas the general meeting is the platform given to the shareholders to articulate and discuss their concerns as the foundation of the executive branch. The general meeting makes ultimate decisions specifically on cases concerning the appointment of supervisory board members and auditors, the allocation of profits, approval of the remuneration system for supervisory board members, and their formal discharge. Additionally, it oversees amendments to the articles of association, manages capital-related measures, and has the authority to decide on the dissolution of the company. Since it is a platform for shareholders to exercise their rights, they don’t hold responsibilities that they can be held liable for.
根据欧盟指令
Under the EU directive
必须简要指出的是，德国是欧洲联盟(欧盟)的成员国，因此属于欧洲指令的管辖范围。这些指令对所要达到的结果具有约束力，但由国家当局在本国法律体系内实施(参见《欧盟运作条约》第288条)。
It briefly has to be noted that Germany is a member state of the European Union (EU) and therefore falls under the European directive. These directives are binding as to the result to be achieved but leave national authorities the form of implementation within their own legal system (refer to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU).
最近的一项指令(2024/1760)自 2024 年 7 月 25 日起生效，具有重要意义，因为它明确将可持续性纳入了公司治理。它要求企业在运营和价值链中识别并减轻对人权和环境的影响，因此包括了一些责任，如气候适应性投资;在执行任务时采用基于风险的方法，这意味着行政部门必须根据环境影响的严重性和可能性确定行动的优先次序，并采取适当措施来解决这些问题;以及实施一些实际措施，如制定预防和纠正行动计划、投资基础设施以及调整业务战略，以促进更可持续的企业行为。该指令涵盖全球价值链，包括上游和下游活动。
One of the most recent directives (2024/1760), effective from 25 July 2024, holds great importance as it explicitly embeds sustainability into corporate governance. It requires companies to identify and mitigate human rights and environmental impacts in their operations and value chains, and therefore includes responsibilities such as climate-resilient investments; a risk-based approach when executing their tasks, meaning that executive branches have to prioritize actions based on the severity and likelihood of environmental impacts and taking appropriate measures to address them; as well as an implementation of practical measures like the development of preventive and corrective action plans, investment in infrastructure as well as adapting business strategies to foster a more sustainable corporate behavior. The directive covers global value chains, including upstream and downstream activities.
根据该指令第27条的规定，违规行为将受到处罚，如最高可达公司上一财政年度净营业额5%的罚款、因未开展适当尽职调查而造成损失的赔偿责任以及其他制裁。指定机构将监督和执行这些规则，"董事"必须定期报告其尽职调查活动，并公开披露其政策和活动结果，以确保公司履行其可持续发展责任。
According to Article 27 of the directive, non-compliance can result in penalties such as fines of up to 5% of the company’s net turnover from the preceding financial year, liability for damages caused by failure to conduct adequate due diligence, and other sanctions. A designated authority will supervise and enforce these rules, and “directors” are required to regularly report on their due diligence activities, as well as publicly disclose their policies and results of their activities, so that it is ensured that companies adhere to their sustainability responsibilities.
主要区别和结论
Key differences and conclusion
中国和德国的法律制度都是围绕着董事或同等执行机构的职责和责任而制定的，都以勤勉尽责、诚信义务和忠诚原则为基础，要求其广泛的职责范围始终以公司及其股东的最佳利益为出发点。
The Chinese and German legal systems revolving around the responsibilities and with it also the liability of directors or equivalent executive branches are both based on principles of due diligence, fiduciary duty and loyalty, requiring their broad scope of duties to always be executed in the best interest of the company and its shareholders.
随着中国《中华人民共和国公司法》的修订，这些职责的书面规范现在也与德国的勤勉尽责要求非常相似，都是基于已有的商业判断规则概念。对于违反职责的行为，这两种制度都会以损害赔偿的形式对造成的损失进行处罚，这使得它们的整体方法在根本上非常相似。
With the revised Chinese Company Law, the written specifications for these duties are now also very similar to the German due diligence requirements, both based on the already existing concept of the business judgment rule. For breaches of duties, both systems impose penalties in forms of damage compensation for incurred losses, making their overall approach very similar in their fundament.
其中一个主要区别在于中国的集中式规制和德国更为复杂的公司结构所造成的法律结构上的差异：不仅中国董事的职责主要由一部《中华人民共和国公司法》规定，而德国对有限责任公司和股份有限公司分别规定了两部法典;而且中国公司通常有一个董事会，而德国公司则没有。德国的股份有限公司通常采用双董事会制度，由执行董事会和监事会组成，而德国有限责任公司中与中国董事会相关的角色和责任则由董事总经理和股东共同承担。在德国，由于对每个行为者的职责和责任都有明确的规定，因此这种制度更加正规化。不过，这两种制度都为公司的执行机构规定了类似的严格责任，并确保遵守公司治理标准，但需要注意的是，由于欧盟的指令，德国的法律限制范围更广，从而进一步加强了其正规化方法。
One of the main differences only lies within the legal structure due to China’s centralized approach and German more complex companies’ structures: Not only are the responsibilities of directors mainly governed by one Company Law, whereas in Germany imposes two separate codifications for LLCs and JSCs; Chinese companies typically have a single board of directors while Germans do not. German JSCs often have a dual-board system instead, made up of an executive board and a supervisory board, while the equivalent of the roles and responsibilities associated with a Chinese board of directors in a German LLC is the combination of the managing director and the shareholders. This system creates a more formalized approach in Germany due to the explicit guidelines for the duties and liabilities for every actor. However, both systems establish similar stringent responsibilities for the executive branch of a company and ensure compliance with corporate governance standards, whereby it is to note that Germany lies under a broader restrictive legal context due to the directives of the EU, thus additionally enhancing their formalized approach.
因此，综上所述，虽然中德两国关于公司董事责任的法律框架在结构方式、法律背景和具体法律规定上存在差异，但它们仍具有共同的原则和目标，可以概括为确保董事坚持高标准的公司治理，保护公司及其股东的利益。
Therefore, in conclusion, while both Chinese and German legal frameworks for company directors’ responsibilities differ in their structural approaches, legal contexts and specific legal provisions, they still share common principles and goals which can be summarized as an ensurance that directors uphold high standards of corporate governance, protecting the interests of the company and its shareholders.
※实习生Vanessa Tran(德国，中文名：陈婉芹)主笔本文。Vanessa Tran 是来自德国明斯特大学的法律系学生，主修德国法律并辅修国际法，于2023年来到中国华东政法大学进行为期一年的交换学习，在此期间，她在北京德和衡(上海)律师事务所完成了为期四周的实习，对中国公司法有了系统性的了解。