| NOMINATION AND REMUNERATION COMMITTEE HAD LAID DOWN THE CRITERIA AND PRESCRIBED A PEER EVALUATION METHODOLOGY BY WAY OF SET OF QUESTIONNAIRES TO EVALUATE THE PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS, COMMITTEE(S) OF THE BOARD, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND THE BOARD AS A WHOLE. THE BOARD SUBSEQUENTLY CARRIED OUT THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AS PER THE METHODOLOGY. 1. THE EVALUATION OF THE BOARDS’ PERFORMANCE AS A COLLECTIVE ENTITY WAS CONDUCTED BASED ON VARIOUS CRITERIA, INCLUDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE BOARDS’ COMPOSITION AND THAT OF ITS COMMITTEES, THE CULTURE WITHIN THE BOARD, EXECUTION CAPABILITIES, THE DIVERSITY OF SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE, THE SEQUENCE OF MEETINGS, DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES, THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED, THE PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC DUTIES, OBLIGATIONS, AND GOVERNANCE PRACTICES.2. THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL DIRECTOR, INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, WAS EXECUTED BASED ON THEIR COMMITMENT TO THEIR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, THE DEGREE OF ENGAGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTION, INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGMENT, STRATEGIC AND LATERAL THINKING ABILITIES, AND THEIR EFFORTS IN SAFEGUARDING THE INTERESTS OF THE COMPANY AND ITS MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS, AMONG OTHER FACTORS. 3. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SENIOR MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL WAS DETERMINED BASED ON THEIR PERFORMANCE AND ACHIEVEMENT OF BUSINESS PLANS AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD AND MANAGEMENT, THEIR COMMITMENT TOWARDS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY, LEADERSHIP QUALITY, PRODUCTIVITY, TEAM MANAGEMENT, ETC. 28.2. FURTHER, INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, AT THEIR MEETING HELD ON 26 OCTOBER 2024 (WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR AND PERSONNEL FROM MANAGEMENT), HAD CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED THE BOARDS’ PERFORMANCE ON THE WHOLE, THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHER NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. 28.3. THERE ARE NO OBSERVATIONS OR PENDING ACTIONS ON THE BOARD EVALUATION. THE BOARD EXPRESSED ITS SATISFACTION WITH THE EVALUATION PROCESS AND RESULTS THEREOF. |