Saha Corporate Governance and
Credit Rating Services

Corporate Governance Rating Definitions

Corporate Governance Rating Definitions

9 – 10

The company performs very well in terms of the Capital Markets Board’s corporate governance principles. It has, to varying degrees, identified and actively managed all significant corporate governance risks through comprehensive internal controls and management systems. The company’s performance is considered to represent best practice, and it had almost no deficiencies in any of the areas rated.

8

The company performs well in terms of Capital Markets Board’s corporate governance principles and has qualified to be included in the BIST’s (Borsa Istanbul) Corporate Governance Index. It has, to varying degrees, identified all its material corporate governance risks and is actively managing the majority of them through internal controls and management systems. During the rating process, minor deficiencies were found in one or two of the areas rated.

6 – 7

The company performs fair in terms of the Capital Markets Board’s corporate governance principles. It has, to varying degrees, identified the majority of its material corporate governance risks and is beginning to actively manage them. Management accountability is considered in accordance with national standards but may be lagging behind international best practices. During the ratings process, minor deficiencies were identified in more than two of the areas rated.

4 – 5

The company performs poorly as a result of poor corporate governance policies and practices. The company has, to varying degrees, identified its minimum obligations but does not demonstrate an effective, integrated system of controls for managing related risks. Assurance mechanisms are weak. The rating has identified significant deficiencies in a number (but not the majority) of areas rated.

< 4

The company performs very weakly and its corporate governance policies and practices are overall very poor. The company shows limited awareness of corporate governance risks, and internal controls are almost non-existent. Significant deficiencies are apparent in the majority of areas rated and have led to significant material loss and investor concern.