Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) - Principles and Practice · Board Effectiveness and Building Better Boards

Board Evaluation and Performance Review under the Companies Act, 2013

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Board evaluation is a structured review of how well the board, its committees and each director perform. Under section 178(2), the Nomination and Remuneration Committee specifies the manner of evaluation, which the Board, the committee or an independent external agency carries out. The NRC then reviews implementation and compliance. Results guide improvement.

Understand Board Evaluation and Performance Review

A board is a group of people who take decisions for the company. Like any group, it can drift. Some directors stop contributing. Meetings may fill up with routine items. Evaluation is the tool that checks this. It asks: is the board doing its job, and is each director adding value?

Three levels are evaluated: the board as a whole, its committees (such as Audit, NRC, Stakeholders Relationship) and individual directors. Each level needs different questions. For the board, you look at strategy, oversight, information flow and meeting quality. For a committee, you look at whether it met its terms of reference. For a director, you look at preparation, attendance, independent judgment and contribution.

The Companies Act, 2013 places this duty in section 178(2). The Nomination and Remuneration Committee shall specify the manner for effective evaluation of performance of the Board, its committees and individual directors. The evaluation can be carried out by the Board, by the NRC, or by an independent external agency. The NRC must also review its implementation and compliance. So the NRC designs the method and monitors it, but it need not carry out the evaluation itself.

The NRC also formulates the criteria for determining qualifications, positive attributes and independence of a director (section 178(3)). Evaluation criteria usually draw on these. Section 178(1) applies the NRC requirement to every listed public company and to other prescribed classes of companies.

Internal evaluation is done by the board or the NRC using questionnaires, discussions and peer feedback. It is cheap and uses insider knowledge, but it can be soft because directors judge colleagues. External evaluation uses an independent agency. It brings objectivity and benchmarks, but it costs more and the agency may lack feel for the company. The real value comes after the exercise. Findings should lead to action: training, changes in committee composition, better board papers, or a decision not to propose a director for reappointment.

Key rules to remember

Who specifies the evaluation method: NRC specifies the manner of evaluation - Section 178(2); The NRC specifies the manner and reviews implementation and compliance. It is not required to conduct the evaluation itself.
Who may carry out the evaluation: Board OR NRC OR independent external agency; Section 178(2) lists these three options. Say all three in your answer.
What is evaluated: Board + its committees + individual directors; Three levels. Do not leave out committees.
NRC composition: At least 3 non-executive directors; not less than one-half independent - Section 178(1); The chairperson of the company may be a member but cannot chair the NRC.
Criteria for directors: NRC formulates criteria for qualifications, positive attributes and independence - Section 178(3); These criteria support the evaluation of individual directors.
Penalty for contravention of section 177 and 178: Company: fine of ₹1,00,000 to ₹5,00,000; each officer in default: penalty as stated in section 178(8); Quote the company fine range. For officers, the text supplied has been amended, so state the penalty only in general terms unless you are sure.

How to solve Board Evaluation and Performance Review questions

Use this order for any question on board evaluation. It follows the exam pattern of provision, analysis and conclusion.

1Identify what is asked: the legal requirement, the process, the choice of evaluator, or a case on how to use results.
2State the provision: section 178(2) and the role of the NRC in specifying the manner of evaluation.
3Name the three levels: the Board, its committees and individual directors.
4State who can carry out the evaluation: the Board, the NRC or an independent external agency, and that the NRC reviews implementation and compliance.
5Apply to the facts: check the company type, who evaluated whom, and whether criteria and method were set in advance.
6Compare internal and external evaluation if the question needs a choice, giving one benefit and one limit of each.
7Explain how results are used: feedback, training, committee changes, reappointment decisions and disclosure.
8Conclude with a clear view and a practical step, such as adopting a written evaluation policy.

Quickest way: Four-point answer frame

When to use it: Use when time is short or the question is a 5-mark short note.

Law: section 178(2) - NRC specifies the manner; Board, NRC or external agency carries it out.
Scope: Board, committees, individual directors.
Method: criteria, questionnaire, feedback, review of implementation.
Outcome: action plan, training, reappointment input, improved board processes.

Common mistakes in Board Evaluation and Performance Review

Saying the NRC must itself evaluate every director.
Students link evaluation with the NRC and assume it does the work.
Fix: Write that the NRC specifies the manner and reviews implementation. The evaluation may be done by the Board, the NRC or an independent external agency.
Leaving out committees from the scope.
Students remember only 'board and directors'.
Fix: Always write the three levels: Board, its committees and individual directors.
Claiming external evaluation is mandatory.
Students assume independence means an outside agency.
Fix: Section 178(2) gives a choice of three evaluators. External evaluation is an option, not a requirement under this section.
Stating NRC composition wrongly, for example allowing the chairperson of the company to chair the NRC.
Confusion between membership and chairing.
Fix: The company chairperson may be a member but shall not chair the NRC. The NRC has at least three non-executive directors, with at least one-half independent.
Stopping at the process and ignoring follow-up.
Students treat evaluation as a form-filling exercise.
Fix: Add how results are used: feedback to directors, training, committee reconstitution, and input to reappointment decisions.

Worked examples

Example 1

Sundaram Textiles Limited, a listed public company, wants its board evaluated this year. The chairperson says the NRC must personally evaluate each director. The managing director says only an outside agency can do it. Advise the company.

Show the solution

Provision: section 178(2) says the NRC shall specify the manner for effective evaluation of performance of the Board, its committees and individual directors.
Section 178(2) also says the evaluation may be carried out by the Board, by the NRC or by an independent external agency. The NRC reviews implementation and compliance.
Chairperson's view: wrong in saying the NRC must personally evaluate. The NRC may do so, but it is one of three options.
Managing director's view: wrong in saying only an outside agency can do it. An external agency is permitted, not compulsory.
Practical point: the company is a listed public company, so the NRC requirement applies under section 178(1). The NRC should first set the criteria and method, then choose the evaluator.

Answer: Both views are incorrect. The NRC must specify the manner of evaluation and review its implementation, but the evaluation can be carried out by the Board, the NRC or an independent external agency. The company should have the NRC set the criteria and method and then select the evaluator.

Example 2

Himalaya Pharma Limited completed an internal board evaluation. Results showed that two independent directors rarely prepared for meetings, and the Audit Committee's agenda lacked review of internal financial controls. Explain how the company should use the results.

Show the solution

Identify the levels: two findings relate to individual directors and one to a committee.
Link to law: the Audit Committee's terms of reference under section 177(4) include evaluation of internal financial controls and risk management systems. A gap here is a gap against its mandate.
Directors: the Chairperson or the NRC gives confidential feedback, agrees an improvement plan such as earlier circulation of papers and briefings, and tracks attendance and participation.
Committee: the Board should revise the Audit Committee agenda and calendar so that internal financial controls are reviewed regularly.
Role of the NRC: it reviews implementation and compliance as required by section 178(2), and may consider the results while recommending reappointment.
Independence check: since internal evaluation can be lenient, the company may consider an independent external agency in the next cycle.

Answer: The company should give feedback to the two directors with a time-bound improvement plan, correct the Audit Committee's agenda to cover internal financial controls, have the NRC review implementation, and consider the results at reappointment. An external agency can be used next time for objectivity.

Exam tips

Quote section 178(2) in the first line. The examiner looks for the provision before the analysis.
Always list the three evaluators (Board, NRC, independent external agency) and the three levels (Board, committees, directors).
In case-based questions, judge who did the evaluation and whether the NRC specified the manner and reviewed compliance.
For internal versus external questions, give one advantage and one limitation of each, then a reasoned conclusion.
End with action points: feedback, training, reconstitution and reappointment input.

Practice questions from Board Effectiveness and Building Better Boards

Board Evaluation and Performance Review in other exams

The same ground in other exams, if you are preparing for more than one or want another angle on it.

Board Evaluation and Performance Review: frequently asked questions

Which section of the Companies Act, 2013 requires board evaluation?

Section 178(2) deals with it. The NRC shall specify the manner for effective evaluation of performance of the Board, its committees and individual directors, and review its implementation and compliance.

Who can carry out board evaluation?

The Board, the Nomination and Remuneration Committee, or an independent external agency. The Act leaves the choice to the company.

What is the difference between internal and external board evaluation?

Internal evaluation is done by the board or NRC, using questionnaires and discussion. It is low cost but can lack objectivity. External evaluation is done by an independent agency. It offers objectivity and benchmarking but costs more.

What happens after the evaluation is complete?

The results should be used to improve. This can include feedback to directors, training, changes in committees, better board processes and input into reappointment decisions. The NRC reviews implementation and compliance.