Deutsche Bank Transition toward a sustainable and climate-neutral economy Non-Financial Report 2022 Environmental and social due diligence Environmental and social due diligence –First-time disclosure of transactions in scope of the Equator Principles –Continuing environmental and social reviews of transactions and clients GRI 3-3 Being a global bank supporting various sectors of the economy Deutsche Bank can be potentially linked or exposed to negative environmental and social impacts and risks. The bank has committed to understand the environmental and social challenges and risks associated with a transaction or client and has developed robust frameworks and systematic risk evaluation processes. Regarding environmental and social risks, the bank’s management process is summarized in the “Climate risk” chapter and in the “Environmental and social policy framework” section of this chapter. This latter Framework in turn is an integral part of the bank’s Reputational Risk Framework. The governance associated with the latter is described in the following section. Governance GRI 2-9/12/13/23/24/25, 3-3 The purpose of the bank’s Reputational Risk Framework is to prevent damage to the bank’s reputation by stipulating the process by which Deutsche Bank makes decisions – in advance – on matters that may pose a reputational risk. The framework provides consistent standards for the identification, assessment, and management of reputational risks. Reputational risks that may arise from a failure relating to another risk type, control, or process are managed separately by means of the relevant risk framework and are therefore not discussed in this section. All employees are responsible for identifying potential reputational risks and reporting them by means of the Unit Reputational Risk Assessment Process (Unit RRAP). Through the Unit Reputational Risk Assessment Process relevant stakeholders are consulted for input, such as country management, key control functions, and other second-line subject matter experts. The Unit Reputational Risk Assessment Process is chaired by a business division’s relevant senior manager and applies to all matters deemed to pose moderate or greater reputational risk. If a matter is considered to pose a material reputational risk and/or meets one of the bank’s mandatory referral criteria, it is referred for further review to the relevant Regional Reputational Risk Committee. In exceptional circumstances, matters are referred to the Group Reputational Risk Committee. This may be the case if a matter is declined by the Regional Reputational Risk Committee and appealed by the business division, or if the Regional Reputational Risk Committee cannot reach a two- thirds majority decision. Matters specific to DWS are reviewed by a DWS reputational risk committee and, if necessary, reported to the DWS Executive Board. Matters assessed through the Reputational Risk Framework Dec 31, 2022 Dec 31, 2021 Dec 31, 2020 Number of matters reviewed (on which final decisions have been made) To Unit Reputational Risk Assessment Processes only 71 81 104 Thereof with ES issues 9 14 7 Thereof with gaming-related issues 1 3 0 Thereof with defense-related issues 2 3 6 To Regional Reputational Risk Committees 34 49 64 Thereof with ES issues 6 3 3 Thereof with gaming-related issues 2 1 6 Thereof with defense-related issues 4 1 8 To Group Reputational Risk Committee or above 5 6 3 Thereof with ES issues 2 4 0 Thereof with gaming-related issues 0 1 0 Thereof with defense-related issues 1 0 1 Total 110 136 171 Thereof with environmental and social issues 17 21 10 Thereof with gaming-related issues 3 5 6 Thereof with defense-related issues 7 4 15 The Reputational Risk Team provides monthly updates on reputational risk topics to the Regional Reputational Risk Committee chairs and secretaries of the Unit RRAPs, as well as quarterly updates to the Group Reputational Risk Committee and Regional Reputational Risk Committees. The Risk and Capital Profile report, which includes updates on reputational risks, is distributed on a monthly basis to the Management Board and on a quarterly basis to the Supervisory Board. It includes details such as the number of reputational risk issues assessed by the various committees and their decisions. 52