Proposal

The Board of Directors proposes that the Annual Report, the consolidated financial statements and the statutory financial statements of Logitech International S.A. for fiscal year 2015 be approved.

Explanation

The Logitech consolidated financial statements and the statutory financial statements of Logitech International S.A. for fiscal year 2015 are contained in Logitech’s Annual Report, which was made available to all registered shareholders on or before the date of this Invitation and Proxy Statement. The Annual Report also contains the report of Logitech’s auditors, the report of the statutory auditors, Logitech’s Remuneration Report prepared in compliance with the Swiss Ordinance Against Excessive Compensation by Public Corporations (the so-called “Minder Ordinance”) as well as the report of the statutory auditors on the Remuneration Report, additional information on the Company’s business, organization and strategy, and information relating to corporate governance as required by the SIX Swiss Exchange directive on corporate governance. Copies of the Annual Report are available on the Internet at ir.logitech.com.

Under Swiss law, the annual report and financial statements of Swiss companies must be submitted to shareholders for approval or disapproval at each annual general meeting. In the event of a negative vote on this proposal by shareholders, the Board of Directors will call an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders for re-consideration of this proposal by shareholders.

Approval of this proposal does not constitute approval or disapproval of any of the individual matters referred to in the Annual Report or the consolidated or statutory financial statements for fiscal year 2015.

KPMG AG, as Logitech auditors, issued an unqualified recommendation to the Annual General Meeting that the consolidated and statutory financial statements of Logitech International S.A. be approved. KPMG AG expressed their opinion that the “consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2015 present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position, the results of operations and the cash flows in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP) and comply with Swiss law.” They further expressed their opinion and confirmed that the financial statements and the proposed appropriation of available earnings comply with Swiss law and the Articles of Incorporation of Logitech International S.A. and the Remuneration Report contains the information required by Swiss law.

Voting Requirement to Approve Proposal

The affirmative “FOR” vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual General Meeting, not counting abstentions.

Recommendation

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” approval of the Annual Report, the consolidated financial statements and the statutory financial statements of Logitech International S.A. for fiscal year 2015.

Proposal

The Board of Directors proposes that shareholders approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of Logitech’s named executive officers disclosed in Logitech’s Compensation Report for fiscal year 2015.

Explanation

At Logitech’s 2009 and 2010 Annual General Meetings, the Logitech Board of Directors voluntarily asked shareholders to approve Logitech’s compensation philosophy, policies and practices, as set out in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of the Compensation Report, as a reflection of evolving best practices in corporate governance in Switzerland and in the United States. This proposal, commonly known as a “say-on-pay” proposal, gave our shareholders the opportunity to express their views on our compensation as a whole. Shareholders were supportive of our compensation philosophy, policies and practices in those years and every year since.

Beginning with the 2011 Annual General Meeting, a say-on-pay advisory vote was required for all public companies, including Logitech, that are subject to the applicable U.S. proxy statement rules. At the 2011 Annual General Meeting, shareholders approved a proposal to take this vote annually. Accordingly, the Board of Directors is asking shareholders to approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of Logitech’s named executive officers disclosed in the Compensation Report, including the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” the Summary Compensation table and the related compensation tables, notes, and narrative. This vote is not intended to address any specific items of compensation or any specific named executive officer, but rather the overall

compensation of our named executive officers and the philosophy, policies and practices described in the Compensation Report.

This say-on-pay vote is advisory and therefore is not binding. It is carried out as a best practice and to comply with applicable U.S. proxy statement rules, and is consequently independent from, and comes in addition to, the binding vote on the compensation of the Board of Directors for the 2015 to 2016 Board Year contemplated in Proposal 8 and the binding vote on the Approval of Compensation for the Group Management Team for Fiscal Year 2017 contemplated in Proposal 9 below. However, the say-on-pay vote will provide information to us regarding shareholder sentiment about our executive compensation philosophy, policies and practices, which the Compensation Committee of the Board will be able to consider when determining future executive compensation. The Committee will seek to determine the causes of any significant negative voting result.

As discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of Logitech’s 2015 Compensation Report, Logitech has designed its compensation programs to:

The Compensation Committee of the Board has developed a compensation program that is described more fully in the Compensation Report included in this Invitation and Proxy Statement. Logitech’s compensation philosophy, compensation program risks and design, and compensation paid during fiscal year 2015 are also set out in the Compensation Report.

While compensation is a central part of attracting, retaining and motivating the best executives and employees, we believe it is not the sole or exclusive reason why exceptional executives or employees choose to join and stay at Logitech, or why they work hard to

achieve results for shareholders. In this regard, both the Compensation Committee and management believe that providing a working environment and opportunities in which executives and employees can develop, express their individual potential, and make a difference, are also a key part of Logitech’s success in attracting, motivating and retaining executives and employees.

Voting Requirement to Approve Proposal

The affirmative “FOR” vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual General Meeting, not counting abstentions.

Recommendation

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” approval of the following advisory resolution:

“Resolved, that the compensation paid to Logitech’s named executive officers as disclosed in the Compensation Report, including the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” the Summary Compensation table and the related compensation tables, notes, and narrative discussion, is hereby approved.”

Proposal

The Board of Directors proposes that CHF 449,500,812 (approximately USD 462,221,685) based on the exchange rate on March 31, 2015) of retained earnings be appropriated as follows:

The Board of Directors proposes distribution of a gross aggregate dividend of approximately CHF 82,661,493, based on the Board-approved gross aggregate dividend of USD 85,000,000 and the exchange rate on March 31, 2015, or approximately CHF 0.5025 per share (approximately USD 0.5167).*

No distribution shall be made on shares held in treasury by the Company and its subsidiaries.

If the proposal of the Board of Directors is approved, the dividend payment of approximately CHF 0.5025 per share (or approximately CHF 0.3266 per share after deduction of 35% Swiss withholding tax whenever required) will be made on or about September 22, 2015 to all shareholders on record as of the record date (which will be on or about September 21, 2015). We expect that the shares will be traded ex dividend as of approximately September 17, 2015.

Explanation

Under Swiss law, the use of retained earnings must be submitted to shareholders for approval or disapproval at each annual general meeting. The retained earnings at the disposal of Logitech shareholders at the 2015 Annual General Meeting are the earnings of Logitech International S.A., the Logitech parent holding company.

The proposal of the Board of Directors to distribute a gross dividend of approximately CHF 0.5025 per share represents an increase of approximately 91% over the prior year, following another year of strong cash flow from operations, and is an indication of the Board of Directors’ confidence in the future of the Company. Since fiscal year 2013, the Board of Directors decided on a recurring annual gross dividend and not on an occasional one. As a consequence, the Company expects to propose such a dividend to the shareholders of the Company every year (subject to the approval of the Company’s statutory auditors in the applicable year).

Other than the distribution of the dividend, the Board of Directors proposes the carry-forward of retained earnings based on the Board’s belief that it is in the best interests of Logitech and its shareholders to retain Logitech’s earnings for future investment in the growth of Logitech’s business, for share repurchases, and for the possible acquisition of other companies or lines of business.

Voting Requirement to Approve Proposal

The affirmative “FOR” vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual General Meeting, not counting abstentions.

Recommendation

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” approval of the proposed appropriation of retained earnings with respect to fiscal year 2015, including the payment of a dividend to shareholders in an amount of approximately CHF 0.5025 per share.*

Proposal

The Board of Directors proposes that shareholders release the members of the Board of Directors and Executive Officers from liability for activities during fiscal year 2015.

Explanation

As is customary for Swiss corporations and in accordance with Article 698, subsection 2, item 5 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, shareholders are requested to release the members of the Board of Directors and the Executive Officers from liability for their activities during fiscal year 2015 that have been disclosed to shareholders. This release from liability exempts members of the Board of Directors or Executive Officers from liability claims brought by the Company or its shareholders on behalf of the Company against any of them for activities carried out during fiscal year 2015 relating to facts that have been disclosed to shareholders. Shareholders that do not vote in favor of the proposal, or acquire their shares after the vote without knowledge of the approval of this resolution, are not bound by the result for a period ending six months after the vote.

Voting Requirement to Approve Proposal

The affirmative “FOR” vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual General Meeting, not counting abstentions and not counting the votes of any member of the Board of Directors or of any Logitech executive officers.

Recommendation

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the proposal to release the members of the Board of Directors and Executive Officers from liability for activities during fiscal year 2015.

Our Board of Directors is presently composed of ten members. Each director was elected for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2015 Annual General Meeting.

At the recommendation of the Nominating Committee, the Board has nominated the ten individuals below to serve as directors for a one-year term, beginning in each case as of the Annual General Meeting on September 9, 2015. Seven of the nominees currently serve as members of the Board of Directors. Their current terms expire upon the closing of the Annual General Meeting on September 9, 2015. The other three nominees were recommended by the Nominating Committee of the Board and approved by the Board in June 2015 as nominees for election to the Board. Dr. Bugnion’s candidacy as a nominee was recommended by our director, Mr. Daniel Borel, and Korn Ferry in Switzerland, an executive search firm. Ms. Sue Gove’s candidacy as a nominee was recommended by Russell Reynolds, an executive search firm. Dr. Lung Yeh’s candidacy as a nominee was recommended by our director and Chair of the Nominating Committee, Mr. Kee-Lock Chua. Ms. Monika Ribar and Mr. Matthew Bousquette, having served the Company as members of the Board for eleven and ten years, respectively, have decided to retire and not to stand for re-election. Mr. Daniel Borel, the co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company and a member of the Board for 27 years, has decided to retire and not to stand for re-election.

The term of office ends at the closing of the next Annual General Meeting. There will be a separate vote on each nominee.

Under Swiss law, Board members may only be appointed by shareholders. If the individuals below are elected, the Board will be composed of ten members. The Board has no reason to believe that any of our nominees will be unwilling or unable to serve if elected as a director.

For further information on the Board of Directors, including the current members of the Board, the Committees of the Board, the means by which the Board exercises supervision of Logitech’s executive officers, and other information, please see “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors Matters” below.

5.A Re-election of Mr. Kee-Lock Chua

Proposal: The Board of Directors proposes that Mr. Kee-Lock Chua be re-elected to the Board for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

For biographical information and qualifications of Mr. Chua, please refer to “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors Matters – Members of the Board of Directors” on page 34.

5.B Re-election of Mr. Bracken Darrell

Proposal: The Board of Directors proposes that the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Bracken Darrell, be re-elected to the Board for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

For biographical information and qualifications of Mr. Darrell, please refer to “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors Matters – Members of the Board of Directors” on page 34.

5.C Re-election of Ms. Sally Davis

Proposal: The Board of Directors proposes that Ms. Sally Davis be re-elected to the Board for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

For biographical information and qualifications of Ms. Davis, please refer to “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors Matters – Members of the Board of Directors” on page 35.

5.D Re-election of Mr. Guerrino De Luca

Proposal: The Board of Directors proposes that Mr. Guerrino De Luca be re-elected to the Board for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

For biographical information and qualifications of Mr. De Luca, please refer to “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors Matters – Members of the Board of Directors” on page 35.

5.E Re-election of Mr. Didier Hirsch

Proposal: The Board of Directors proposes that Mr. Didier Hirsch be re-elected to the Board for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

For biographical information and qualifications of Mr. Hirsch, please refer to “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors Matters – Members of the Board of Directors” on page 36.

5.F Re-election of Dr. Neil Hunt

Proposal: The Board of Directors proposes that Dr. Neil Hunt be re-elected to the Board for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

For biographical information and qualifications of Dr. Hunt, please refer to “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors Matters – Members of the Board of Directors” on page 36.

5.G Re-election of Mr. Dimitri Panayotopoulos

Proposal: The Board of Directors proposes that Mr. Dimitri Panayotopoulos be re-elected to the Board for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

For biographical information and qualifications of Mr. Panayotopoulos, please refer to “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors Matters – Members of the Board of Directors” on page 37.

5.H Election of Dr. Edouard Bugnion

Proposal: In accordance with the recommendation of the Nominating Committee, the Board of Directors proposes that Dr. Edouard Bugnion be elected to the Board for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

Edouard Bugnion is a Professor in the School of Computer and Communication Sciences at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). Prior to joining the EPFL in August 2012, Dr. Bugnion was a Founder and Chief Technology Officer of Nuova Systems, Inc., a developer of enterprise data center solutions, from October 2005 to May 2008. Nuova Systems was funded by and acquired by Cisco Systems, Inc., a worldwide leader in Internet Protocol-based networking products and services. He joined Cisco as a Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Cisco’s Server Access and Virtualization Business Unit from May 2008 to June 2011. Prior to Nuova, Dr. Bugnion was a Founder of VMware, a leading provider of cloud and virtualization software and services, where he held many positions, including Chief Technology Officer, from 1998 to 2005. Dr. Bugnion holds an Engineering Diplom from ETH Zürich, a Master’s degree from Stanford University and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, all in Computer Science. He is 45 years old and is a Swiss and U.S. national.

Dr. Bugnion’s significant expertise in technology, software and cloud computing, and his experience founding technology companies and as a member of the senior leadership of leading technology companies, provides the Board with technology and product strategy expertise as well as senior leadership.

The Board of Directors has determined that he will be an independent Director.

5.I Election of Ms. Sue Gove

Proposal: In accordance with the recommendation of the Nominating Committee, the Board of Directors proposes that Ms. Sue Gove be elected to the Board for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

Sue Gove is the President of Excelsior Advisors, LLC, a retail consulting and advisory firm. Prior to founding Excelsior Advisors in August 2014, Ms. Gove was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Golfsmith International, a multi-channel specialty golf retailer, from October 2012 to April 2014 and President from February 2012 to April 2014. She also served Golfsmith as Chief Operating Officer from September 2008 to October 2012, as Chief Financial Officer from March 2009 to July 2012 and as Executive Vice President from September 2008 to February 2012. Prior to joining Golfsmith, Ms. Gove was an independent consultant, serving specialty retail and private equity clients from 2006 to 2008, which included consultancy for Prentice Capital Management, LP from April 2007 to March 2008 and for Alvarez and Marsal Business Consulting, L.L.C. from April 2006 to March 2007. Ms. Gove served Zale Corporation, a leading specialty jewelry retailer, from 1980 to 2006, including as Chief Operating Officer from August 2002 to March 2006, as Chief Financial Officer from December 1997 to February 2003 and as a Board member from September 2004 to March 2006. She currently serves on the Boards of Iconix Brand Group, a consumer brand licensing and marketing company, and AutoZone, Inc., a leading retailer and distributor of automotive replacement parts and accessories. Ms. Gove holds a BBA degree in Accounting from the University of Texas at Austin. She is 56 years old and is a U.S. national.

Ms. Gove has significant executive experience with international retail, marketing, merchandising and global operations, and brings to our Board senior leadership,

strategic and financial experience. As a member of other public company boards, Ms. Gove also provides cross-board experience.

The Board of Directors has determined that she will be an independent Director and qualifies as an audit committee financial expert.

5.J Election of Dr. Lung Yeh

Proposal: In accordance with the recommendation of the Nominating Committee, the Board of Directors proposes that Dr. Lung Yeh be elected to the Board for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

Lung Yeh is the Managing Director of Enspire Capital, a Singapore-based venture capital and private equity firm focusing on technology, media and telecommunications, internet and mobile investments in Silicon Valley, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Prior to joining Enspire Capital in 2004, Dr. Yeh was the Vice President of Business Development at Centrality Communications, Inc., a leading provider of GPS semiconductor platforms for high-functional mobile devices, from 2003 to 2004, a Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Pico Communications Inc., a provider of integrated Bluetooth and mobile Internet access and networking solutions, from 1999 to 2003, Vice President of the Communication and Internet Division of Creative Labs Ltd., a leader in digital entertainment products, from 1993 to 1998, a Founder and Chief Executive Officer of ShareVision Technology, Inc., a desktop videoconferencing technology company, from 1991 to 1993, and served in various management and technical positions at Apple Inc., NYNEX and Kodak, from 1985 to 1991. Dr. Yeh holds a BSEE in Communication Engineering from National Chiao-Tung University and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. He is 59 years old and a U.S. national.

Dr. Yeh has extensive investment and senior leadership experience, as a venture capitalist in Asia and the United States focused on multimedia, wireless and communications, and also as the founder and former Chief Executive Officer of several technology companies. He brings to the Board senior leadership, business development and global expertise.

The Board of Directors has determined that he will be an independent Director.

Voting Requirement to Approve Proposals

The affirmative “FOR” vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual General Meeting, not counting abstentions.

Recommendation

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the election to the Board of each of the above nominees.

Pursuant to the so-called “Minder Ordinance”, Swiss law requires that the Chairman of the Board of Directors be elected on the occasion of each Annual General Meeting for a one-year term ending at the closing of the following Annual General Meeting.

Proposal

The Board of Directors proposes that Mr. Guerrino De Luca be re-elected as Chairman of the Board of Directors for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

Voting Requirement to Approve Proposal

The affirmative “FOR” vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual General Meeting, not counting abstentions.

Recommendation

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the election of Mr. Guerrino De Luca as Chairman of the Board of Directors.

Our Compensation Committee is presently composed of four members, two of whom are not standing for re-election to the Board of Directors. Following the amendment to the Swiss corporate law on January 1, 2014, the members of the Compensation Committee are to be elected annually and individually by the shareholders. Only members of the Board of Directors can be elected as members of the Compensation Committee.

At the recommendation of the Nominating Committee, the Board of Directors has nominated the three individuals below to serve as members of the Compensation Committee for a term of one year. Two of the nominees currently serve as members of the Compensation Committee and, as required by our Compensation Committee charter, all of the nominees are independent in accordance with the requirements of the listing standards of the Nasdaq Stock Market, the outside director definition of Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the definition of a “non-employee director” for purposes of Rule 16b-3 promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and Rule 10C-1(b)(1) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The term of office ends at the closing of the next Annual General Meeting. There will be a separate vote on each nominee.

7.A Re-election of Ms. Sally Davis

Proposal: The Board of Directors proposes that Ms. Sally Davis be re-elected to the Compensation Committee for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

For biographical information and qualifications of Ms. Davis, please refer to “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors Matters – Members of the Board of Directors” on page 35.

7.B Re-election of Dr. Neil Hunt

Proposal: The Board of Directors proposes that Dr. Neil Hunt be re-elected to the Compensation Committee for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

For biographical information and qualifications of Dr. Hunt, please refer to “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors Matters – Members of the Board of Directors” on page 36.

7.C Election of Mr. Dimitri Panayotopoulos

Proposal: The Board of Directors proposes that Mr. Dimitri Panayotopoulos be elected to the Compensation Committee for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

For biographical information and qualifications of Mr. Panayotopoulos, please refer to. “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors Matters – Members of the Board of Directors” on page 37.

Voting Requirement to Approve Proposals

The affirmative “FOR” vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual General Meeting, not counting abstentions.

Recommendation

Our Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the election to the Compensation Committee of each of the above nominees.

Proposal

The Board of Directors proposes that the shareholders approve a maximum aggregate amount of the compensation of the Board of Directors of CHF 4,600,000 for the term of office from the Annual General Meeting 2015 until the Annual General Meeting 2016 (the “2015 – 2016 Board Year”), subject to adjustment for certain changes in the applicable currency exchange rate.*

Explanation

Pursuant to the so-called “Minder Ordinance”, the compensation of the Board of Directors must be subject each year to a binding shareholder vote, in the manner contemplated by Logitech’s Articles of Incorporation. Article 19 quarter, paragraph 1(a) of Logitech’s Articles of Incorporation allows shareholders to approve the maximum aggregate amount of the compensation of the Board of Directors for the period up to the next Annual General Meeting. This required, binding vote on the compensation of the Board of Directors is independent from, and comes in addition to, the non-binding, advisory say-on-pay vote contemplated in Proposal 2.

Under the Company’s Articles of Incorporation, the compensation of the members of the Board of Directors who do not have management responsibilities consists of cash payments and shares or share equivalents. The value of cash compensation and shares or share equivalents corresponds to a fixed amount, which reflects

the functions and responsibilities assumed. The value of shares or share equivalents is calculated at market value at the time of grant.

Pursuant to Article 19 bis, paragraph 2 of the Company’s Articles of Incorporation, the compensation of the members of the Board of Directors who have management responsibilities (i.e., executive members of the Board of Directors) is structured similarly to the compensation of the members of the Group Management Team.

The proposed maximum amount of CHF 4,600,000 has been determined based on the following non-binding assumptions:

With respect to the eight non-executive members of the Board of Directors:

With respect to executive members of the Board of Directors:

The executive member of the Board of Directors to whom the proposed compensation referred to above applies is Mr. Guerrino De Luca, the Company’s Chairman. In his capacity as a member of the Group Management Team, Mr. Bracken Darrell is not entitled to compensation for his services on the Company’s Board of Directors.

In the event of a negative vote on this proposal by shareholders, the Board of Directors will submit an alternative proposal to the same or a subsequent general meeting.

Voting Requirement to Approve Proposal

The affirmative “FOR” vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual General Meeting, not counting abstentions.

Recommendation

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the approval of the maximum aggregate amount of the compensation of the members of the Board of Directors of CHF 4,600,000 for the term of office from the Annual General Meeting 2015 until the Annual General Meeting 2016, subject to adjustment as set forth in the proposal.

Proposal

The Board of Directors proposes that the shareholders approve a maximum aggregate amount of the compensation of the Group Management Team of USD 19,200,000 for fiscal year 2017, subject to adjustment for certain changes in the applicable currency exchange rate.*

Explanation

Pursuant to the so-called “Minder Ordinance”, the compensation of the Company’s Group Management Team must be subject each year to a binding shareholder vote, in the manner contemplated by Logitech’s Articles of Incorporation. Article 19 quarter, paragraph 1(b) of Logitech’s Articles of Incorporation allows shareholders to approve the maximum aggregate amount of the compensation of the Group Management Team for the next fiscal year. As a new requirement arising at the 2015 Annual General Meeting, taking place in the middle of Logitech’s fiscal year 2016, the applicable next fiscal year is fiscal year 2017. This required, binding vote on the compensation of the Group Management Team is independent from, and comes in addition to, the non-binding, advisory say-on-pay vote contemplated in Proposal 2.

Logitech’s Group Management Team currently consists of Messrs. Bracken Darrell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Vincent Pilette, Chief Financial Officer, Marcel Stolk, Senior Vice President, Consumer Computing Platforms Business Group, and L. Joseph Sullivan, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Operations.

Logitech’s compensation philosophy, compensation program risks and design, and compensation paid during fiscal year 2015 are set forth in the Compensation Report.

The proposed maximum amount of USD 19,200,000 has been determined based on the following non-binding assumptions for Logitech’s Group Management Team as an aggregate group:

The actual pay-out to the members of the Group Management Team for fiscal year 2017 will be disclosed in the Compensation Report in the Invitation and Proxy Statement for the 2017 Annual General Meeting.

In the event of a negative vote on this proposal by shareholders, the Board of Directors will submit an alternative proposal to the same or a subsequent general meeting.

Voting Requirement to Approve Proposal

The affirmative “FOR” vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual General Meeting, not counting abstentions.

Recommendation

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the approval of the maximum aggregate amount of the compensation of the Group Management Team of USD 19,200,000 for fiscal year 2017, subject to adjustment as set forth in the proposal.

Proposal

The Board of Directors proposes that KPMG AG be re-elected as auditors of Logitech International S.A. for a one-year term and that the appointment of KPMG LLP as Logitech’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2016 be ratified.

Explanation

KPMG AG, upon recommendation of the Audit Committee of the Board, is proposed for re-election for a further year as auditors for Logitech International S.A. KPMG AG assumed its first audit mandate for Logitech during fiscal year 2015.

The Audit Committee has also appointed KPMG LLP, the U.S. affiliate of KPMG AG, as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016 for purposes of U.S. securities law reporting. Logitech’s Articles of Incorporation do not require that shareholders ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. However, Logitech is submitting the appointment of KPMG LLP to shareholders for ratification as a matter of good corporate governance. If shareholders do not ratify the appointment, the Audit Committee will reconsider whether to retain KPMG LLP. Even if the appointment is ratified, the Audit Committee may, in its discretion, change the appointment during

the year if the Committee determines that such a change would be in the best interests of Logitech and its shareholders.

Information on the fees paid by Logitech to KPMG AG and KPMG LLP, the Company’s auditors and independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2015, respectively, as well as further information regarding KPMG AG and KPMG LLP, is set out below under the heading “Independent Auditors” and “Report of the Audit Committee.”

Members of KPMG AG will be present at the Annual General Meeting, will have the opportunity to make a statement, and will be available to respond to appropriate questions you may ask.

Voting Requirement to Approve Proposal

The affirmative “FOR” vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual General Meeting, not counting abstentions.

Recommendation

Our Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the re-election of KPMG AG as auditors of Logitech International S.A. and the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as Logitech’s independent registered public accounting firm, each for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016.

Pursuant to the so-called “Minder Ordinance”, Swiss law requires that the independent representative of the shareholders (Independent Representative) be elected on the occasion of each Annual General Meeting for a one-year term ending at the closing of the following Annual General Meeting.

Proposal

The Board of Directors proposes that Ms. Béatrice Ehlers be re-elected as Independent Representative for a one-year term ending at the closing of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.

Explanation

Shareholders may either represent their shares themselves or have them represented by a third party, whether or not a shareholder, if the latter is given a written proxy. In accordance with Swiss law, each shareholder may be represented at the general meeting by the Independent Representative, Ms. Béatrice Ehlers, or by a third-party proxy. Ms. Ehlers is a notary public and has served as the Independent Representative at previous annual general meetings.

Under Swiss corporate law, the Independent Representative must satisfy strict independence requirements. In the absence of instructions, the Independent Representative must abstain from voting. General voting instructions can be given with respect to a particular general meeting of shareholders with respect to proposals and agenda items that have not been disclosed in the invitation to the general meeting.

Voting Requirement to Approve Proposal

The affirmative “FOR” vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual General Meeting, not counting abstentions.

Recommendation

Our Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the re-election of Ms. Béatrice Ehlers as Independent Representative.

The Board of Directors is elected by the shareholders and holds the ultimate decision-making authority within Logitech, except for those matters reserved by law or by Logitech’s Articles of Incorporation to its shareholders or those that are delegated to the executive officers under the organizational regulations (also known as by-laws). The Board makes resolutions through a majority vote of

the members present at the meetings. In the event of a tie, the vote of the Chairman decides.

Logitech’s Articles of Incorporation set the minimum number of directors at three. We had ten members of the Board of Directors as of June 30, 2015. If all of the nominees to the Board presented in Proposal 5 are elected, the Board will have ten members.

The Board of Directors has determined that each of our directors and director nominees, other than Daniel Borel, Bracken Darrell and Guerrino De Luca, qualifies as independent in accordance with the published listing requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market and Swiss corporate governance best practices guidelines. The Company’s independent directors and director nominees include Matthew Bousquette, Kee-Lock Chua, Sally Davis, Didier Hirsch, Neil Hunt, Dimitri Panayotopoulos, Monika Ribar, Edouard Bugnion, Sue Gove and Lung Yeh. The Nasdaq independence definition includes a series of objective tests, such as that the director is not an employee

of the company and has not engaged in various types of business dealings with the company. In addition, as further required by Nasdaq rules, the Board has made a subjective determination as to each independent director that no relationships exist which, in the opinion of the Board, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. In making these determinations, the directors reviewed and discussed information provided by the directors and the Company with regard to each director’s business and personal activities as they may relate to Logitech and Logitech’s management.

Other than the current employment and involvement noted above, no other Logitech Board member currently has material supervisory, management, or advisory

functions outside Logitech. None of the Company’s directors holds any official functions or political posts.

Directors are elected at the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders, upon proposal of the Board of Directors. The proposals of the Board of Directors are made following recommendations of the Nominating Committee.

Shareholder Recommendations and Nominees

Under our Articles of Incorporation, one or more registered shareholders who together represent shares representing at least the lesser of (i) one percent of our issued share capital or (ii) an aggregate par value of one million Swiss francs may demand that an item be placed on the agenda of a meeting of shareholders, including a nominee for election to the Board of Directors. A request to place an item on the meeting agenda must be in writing, describe the proposal and be received by our Board of Directors at least 60 days prior to the date of the meeting. Demands by registered shareholders to place an item on the agenda of a meeting of shareholders should be sent to: Secretary to the Board of Directors, Logitech International S.A., EPFL - Quartier de l’Innovation, Daniel Borel Innovation Center, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, or c/o Logitech Inc., 7700 Gateway Boulevard, Newark, CA 94560, USA.

Under the Company’s Articles of Incorporation only registered shareholders are recognized as shareholders of the company. As a result, beneficial shareholders do not have a right to place an item on the agenda of a meeting, regardless of the number of shares they hold. For information on how beneficial shareholders may become registered shareholders, see “Questions and Answers about the Logitech 2015 Annual General Meeting - If I am not a registered shareholder, can I attend and vote at the meeting?”

If the agenda of a general meeting of shareholders includes an item calling for the election of directors, any registered shareholder may propose a candidate for election to the Board of Directors before or at the meeting.

The Nominating Committee does not have a policy on consideration of recommendations for candidates to the Board of Directors from registered shareholders. The Nominating Committee considers it appropriate not to have a formal policy for consideration of such recommendations because the evaluation of potential members of the Board of Directors is by its nature a case-by-case process, depending on the composition of the Board at the time, the needs and status of the business of the Company, and the experience and qualification of the individual. Accordingly, the Nominating Committee would consider any such recommendations on a case-by-case basis in their discretion, and, if accepted for consideration, would evaluate any such properly submitted nominee in consideration of the membership criteria set forth under “Board Composition” below. Shareholder recommendations to the Board of Directors should be sent to the above address.

Board Composition

The Nominating Committee is responsible for reviewing and assessing with the Board the appropriate skills, experience, and background sought of Board members in the context of our business and the then-current membership on the Board. The Nominating Committee has not formally established any specific, minimum qualifications that must be met by each candidate for the Board of Directors or specific qualities or skills that

are necessary for one or more of the members of the Board of Directors to possess. Similarly, the Nominating Committee does not have a formal policy on considering diversity in identifying candidates for election or re-election to the Board of Directors. However, we do not expect or intend that each director will have the same background, skills, and experience; we expect that Board members will have a diverse portfolio of backgrounds, skills, and experiences. One goal of this diversity is to assist the Board as a whole in its oversight and advice concerning our business and operations.

The review and assessment of Board candidates and the current membership of the Board by the Nominating Committee and the Board includes numerous diverse factors, such as: independence; understanding of and experience in technology, finance, and marketing; international experience; age; and gender and ethnic diversity.

The priorities and emphasis of the Nominating Committee and of the Board with regard to these factors change from time to time to take into account changes in Logitech’s business and other trends, as well as the portfolio of skills and experience of current and prospective Board members.

Listed below are key skills and experience that we currently consider important for our directors to have in light of our current business and structure. We do not expect each director to possess every attribute. The directors’ biographies note each director’s relevant experience, qualifications, and skills relative to this list.

Identification and Evaluation of Nominees for Directors

Our Nominating Committee uses a variety of methods for identifying and evaluating nominees for director. Our Nominating Committee regularly assesses the appropriate size and composition of the Board of Directors, the needs of the Board of Directors and the respective Committees of the Board of Directors and

the qualifications of candidates in light of these needs. Candidates may come to the attention of the Nominating Committee through shareholders, management, current members of the Board of Directors or search firms. The evaluation of these candidates may be based solely

upon information provided to the Committee or may also include discussions with persons familiar with the candidate, an interview of the candidate or other actions the Committee deems appropriate, including the use of paid third parties to review candidates.

Each director is elected individually by a separate vote of shareholders. Until 2012, each director was elected for a term of three years. At the Company’s 2012 Annual General Meeting, shareholders approved a change such that each director, starting with the directors elected at the 2012 Annual General Meeting, will be subject to a term of one year. Eight of our ten directors are being presented for re-election to the Board of Directors at the 2015 Annual General Meeting, with two directors deciding to retire and not stand for re-election. Each director is eligible for re-election until his or her seventieth birthday. Directors

may not seek reelection after they have reached 70 years of age, unless the Board of Directors adopts a resolution to the contrary. A member of the Board who reaches 70 years of age during the term of his or her directorship may remain a director until the expiration of the term. A director’s term of office as Chairman coincides with his or her term of office as a director. A director may be indefinitely re-elected as Chairman, subject to the age limit mentioned above.

The year of appointment and remaining term of office as of March 31, 2015 for each director are as follows:

The Board of Directors is responsible for supervising the management of the business and affairs of the Company. In addition to the non-transferable powers and duties of boards of directors under Swiss law, the Logitech Board of Directors also has the following responsibilities:

The Board of Directors has delegated the management of the Company to the Chief Executive Officer and the executive officers, except where Swiss law or the Company’s Articles of Incorporation or Organizational Regulations (By-Laws) provide differently.

Board Leadership Structure

The Board has since 1997 had a general practice that the positions of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer should be held by separate persons as an aid in the Board’s oversight of management. Since 1997, the Chairman has been a former Chief Executive Officer of the Company and has served as a full-time senior executive. Logitech believes that there are advantages to having a former Chief Executive Officer as Chairman, for matters such as: leadership continuity; day-to-day assistance to and oversight of the Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers; and facilitating communications and relations between the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, and other senior management.

Mr. De Luca, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer and current Chairman, has served in that role since January 2008. On July 27, 2011, Mr. De Luca assumed the role of acting President and Chief Executive Officer, in addition to continuing his duties as Chairman, at the request of the Board of Directors. The Board appointed Bracken Darrell as President as of April 9, 2012, and he became the Chief Executive Officer as of January 1, 2013. The Board considered the holding of both the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer positions by Mr. De Luca as a temporary arrangement, and returned to its general practice of the positions being held by separate persons upon the appointment of Mr. Darrell as Chief Executive Officer.

The Chairman of the Board is elected by the shareholders on an annual basis, at the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders. The Secretary of the Board of Directors is appointed at the Board meeting coinciding with the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders. As of June 30, 2015, the Secretary was Mr. Bryan Ko, the Company’s General Counsel.

Role of the Chairman and of the Chief Executive Officer

The Chairman assumes a leading role in mid- and long-term strategic planning and the selection of top-level management, and he supports major transaction initiatives of Logitech.

The Chief Executive Officer manages the day-to-day operations of Logitech, with the support of the other executive officers. The Chief Executive Officer has, in particular, the following powers and duties:

The detailed authorities and responsibilities of the Board of Directors, the Chief Executive Officer and the executive officers are set out in the Company’s Articles of Incorporation and Organizational Regulations. Please refer to http://ir.logitech.com for copies of these documents.

Lead Independent Director

As appointed by the Board, Mr. Bousquette serves as Lead Independent Director. The responsibilities of the Lead Independent Director include chairing meetings of the non-executive directors and serving as the presiding director in performing such other functions as the Board may direct. The Lead Independent Director is elected annually by the Independent Directors.

Means by Which the Board of Directors Supervises Executive Officers

The Board of Directors is regularly informed on developments and issues in Logitech’s business, and monitors the activities and responsibilities of the executive officers in various ways.

The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

One of the Board’s functions is oversight of risk management at Logitech. “Risk” is inherent in business, and the Board seeks to understand and advise on risk in conjunction with the activities of the Board and the Board’s Committees.

The largest risk in any business typically is that the products and services it offers will not be met by customer demand, because of poor strategy, poor execution, lack of competitiveness, or some combination of these or other factors. The Board implements its risk oversight responsibilities, at the highest level, through regular reviews of the Company’s business, product strategy and competitive position, and through management and organizational reviews, evaluations and succession planning.

Within the broad strategic framework established by the Board, management is responsible for identifying risk and risk controls related to significant business activities; mapping the risks to company strategy; and developing programs and recommendations to determine the sufficiency of risk identification, the balance of potential risk to potential reward and the appropriate manner in which to control risk.

The Board’s risk oversight role is implemented at the full Board level, and also in individual Board Committees. The full Board receives specific reports on enterprise risk management, in which the identification and control of risk are the primary topics of the discussion. Presentations and other information for the Board and

Board Committees generally identify and discuss relevant risk and risk control; and the Board members assess and oversee the risks as a part of their review of the related business, financial, or other activity of the Company. The Compensation Committee oversees issues related to the design and risk controls of compensation programs. The Audit Committee oversees issues related to internal control over financial reporting and Logitech’s risk tolerance in cash-management investments. The Board’s role in oversight does not have a direct impact on the Board’s leadership structure, which is discussed above.

Board Meetings

The Chairman sets the agenda for Board meetings, in coordination with the Chief Executive Officer. Any member of the Board of Directors may request that a meeting of the Board be convened. The directors receive materials in advance of Board meetings allowing them to prepare for the handling of the items on the agenda.

The Chairman and Chief Executive Officer recommend executive officers or other members of senior management who, at the invitation of the Board, attend portions of each quarterly Board meeting to report on areas of the business within their responsibility. Infrequently, the Board may also receive reports from external consultants such as executive search or succession experts or outside legal experts to assist the Board on matters it is considering.

The Board typically holds regularly scheduled Board meetings twice each quarter: once for a review and discussion of the Company, its strategy or both, which lasts a full day to a day-and-a-half and in which all directors participate in person except in special individual circumstances; and once for a quarterly earnings-related meeting, which lasts for approximately one to two hours and in which directors participate in person or by teleconference or video conference. Additional meetings of the Board may be held by teleconference or video conference and the duration of such meetings varies depending on the subject matters considered.

Emergency Resolutions

In case of emergency, the Chairman of the Board may have the power to pass resolutions which would otherwise be the responsibility of the Board. Decisions by the Chairman of the Board made in this manner are subject to ratification by the Board of Directors at its next meeting or by way of written consent. No such emergency resolutions were passed during fiscal year 2015.

Independent Director Sessions

The Board of Directors has adopted a policy of regularly scheduled sessions of Board meetings where the

independent directors meet to consider matters without management or non-independent directors present. During fiscal year 2015, separate sessions of the independent directors were held at six separate meetings.

Board Effectiveness

Our Board of Directors performs an annual self-assessment to evaluate its effectiveness in fulfilling its obligations.

The Board has standing Audit, Compensation, and Nominating Committees to assist the Board in carrying out its duties. Each of the Board committees is composed entirely of directors that are independent in accordance with the published listing requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market and Swiss corporate governance best practices guidelines. At each quarterly Board meeting, each applicable Board Committee reports to the full Board on the substance of the Committee’s meetings, if any, during the quarter.

Each Committee has a written charter approved by the Board. The chair of each Committee determines the Committee’s meeting agenda. The Board Committee members receive materials in advance of Committee meetings allowing them to prepare for the meeting. The Charters of each Board Committee are available on Logitech’s Investor Relations website at http://ir.logitech.com. Each of the Audit, Compensation and Nominating Committees has the authority to engage outside experts, advisors and counsel to the extent it considers appropriate to assist the Committee in its work. The members of the Committees are identified in the following table.

Attendance at Board, Committee and Annual Shareholders’ Meetings

In fiscal year 2015 the Board met eleven times, nine of which were regularly scheduled meetings. In addition, the Audit Committee met 17 times, the Compensation Committee met ten times, and the Nominating Committee met six times. The Board also met or held conference calls at least 13 times during fiscal year 2015 with respect to the Audit Committee’s independent investigation of certain accounting matters related to Logitech’s previously issued financial statements. In addition to its meetings,

the Board took six actions for approval by written consent during fiscal year 2015. We expect each director to attend each meeting of the Board and the Committees on which he or she serves, and also expect them to attend the Annual General Meeting of shareholders. Nine of our ten directors attended the 2014 Annual General Meeting. All of the incumbent directors attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board and the Committees on which he or she served. Detailed attendance information for Board and Board Committee meetings during fiscal year 2015 is as follows:

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee is appointed by the Board to assist the Board in monitoring the Company’s financial accounting, controls, planning and reporting. It is composed of only non-executive, independent Board members. Among its duties, the Audit Committee:

The Audit Committee currently consists of Mr. Hirsch, Chairperson, Mr. Bousquette, Mr. Chua, Ms. Davis and Ms. Ribar. The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Audit Committee meets the independence requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market listing standards and the applicable rules and regulations of the SEC. In addition, the Board has determined that Mr. Hirsch, Mr. Bousquette and Ms. Ribar are audit committee financial experts as defined by the applicable rules and regulations of the SEC.

The Audit Committee met 17 times in fiscal year 2015. Four meetings were held in person on the day prior to the regularly scheduled quarterly Board meeting, for approximately two to three hours, and thirteen were held by teleconference, for approximately half-an-hour to two-and-a-half hours preceding the Company’s quarterly report of financial results, preceding the filing of the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q or in special circumstances. The Committee received reports and presentations before the meetings in order to allow them time to prepare adequately. At the Committee’s invitation, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Controller, Vice President of Internal Audit and General Counsel or Associate General Counsel attended each meeting, and representatives from the Company’s then-current independent registered public accounting firm, PwC LLP or KPMG LLP, also attended fifteen of the seventeen meetings. Other members of management

also participated in certain meetings. Five meetings also included a separate session with representatives of the independent registered public accounting firm and separate sessions with the Chief Financial Officer, with the head of Internal Audit or both. In addition to its regular and special meetings, the Audit Committee met or held conference calls at least 32 times during fiscal year 2015 with respect to the Committee’s independent investigation of certain accounting matters related to Logitech’s previously issued financial statements.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee reviews and approves, or recommends to the Board for approval, the compensation of executive officers and non-executive Board members and Logitech’s compensation policies and programs, including share-based compensation programs and other incentive-based compensation. Within the guidelines established by the Board and the limits set forth in the Company’s employee equity incentive plans, the Compensation Committee also has the authority to grant equity incentive awards to employees without further Board approval. The Committee is composed of only non-executive, independent Board members.

The Compensation Committee currently consists of Ms. Davis, Chairperson, Mr. Bousquette, Dr. Hunt and Ms. Ribar. The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Committee meets the independence requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market listing standards.

The Compensation Committee met ten times in fiscal year 2015. At the Committee’s invitation, the Company’s Vice President of People & Culture and the Vice President, Total Rewards (formerly Worldwide Compensation & Benefits) attended each meeting, and the Committee’s independent advisors from Radford Consulting, Compensia or Agnes Blust Consulting attended five meetings.

Four of the meetings were held in person and each meeting lasted for approximately half-an-hour to three-and-a-half hours. In addition to its meetings, the Committee took nine actions for approval by written consent during fiscal year 2015.

Please refer to the Company’s Compensation Report for further information on the Compensation Committee’s criteria and process for evaluating executive compensation.

Nominating Committee

The Nominating Committee is composed of at least three members, with each of the members being non-executive, independent directors. Among its duties, the Nominating Committee:

The Nominating Committee may and typically does retain an executive search firm to assist with the identification and evaluation of prospective Board nominees based on criteria established by the Committee. For information on the Nominating Committee’s policies with respect to director nominations please see “Elections to the Board of Directors” above.

The Nominating Committee currently consists of Mr. Chua, Chairperson, Mr. Bousquette and Ms. Davis. The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Chua, Mr. Bousquette and Ms. Davis meet the independence requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market listing standards. Upon the Committee’s recommendation of nominees for election to the Board of Directors, the nominees are presented to the full Board. Nominees are then selected by a majority of the independent members of the Board. The Nominating Committee met six times in fiscal year 2015. The meetings were held in person or by teleconference and lasted approximately half-an-hour to one hour.

In accordance with the proxy statement rules under U.S. securities laws, the following table shows the number of our shares beneficially owned as of June 30, 2015 by:

Members of the Board of Directors and executive officers and other officers who report directly to the Chief Executive Officer or President are subject to share ownership guidelines.

Directors are required to own Logitech shares with a market value equal to 3 times the annual Board retainer under guidelines adopted by the Board in June 2006 and revised in June 2013. Directors are required to achieve this ownership within five years of joining the Board, or, in the case of directors serving at the time the guidelines were originally adopted, within five years of the effective date of adoption of the guidelines. The guidelines will be adjusted to reflect any capital adjustments, and will

be re-evaluated by the Board from time to time. As of June 30, 2015, each director had either satisfied these ownership guidelines or had time remaining to do so.

The Compensation Committee adopted share ownership guidelines for executive officers and other officers who report directly to the Chief Executive Officer or President effective September 2008 and revised in September 2013. These guidelines now apply to executive officers and other officers who report directly to the Chief Executive Officer. These guidelines require:

Officers subject to the guidelines are required to achieve the guideline within five years of being appointed to the position making them subject to the guideline, or, in the case of such officers serving at the time the guidelines were originally adopted, within five years of the effective date of adoption of the guidelines. The guidelines will be adjusted to reflect any capital adjustments, and will be re-evaluated by the Compensation Committee from time

to time. Up to 50% of the guideline may be met through the net value of vested, unexercised stock options. If the guideline is not met within five years, the Chief Executive Officer must hold 100% of his after-tax shares resulting from option exercises or other equity incentive awards until the guideline is reached, and all other executive officers and Chief Executive Officer direct reports must hold at least 50% of the net shares resulting from option exercises or other equity incentive awards until the guideline is reached. In addition, if the guideline is not met, the officer will have 50% of the after-tax value of any earned bonuses under the Leadership Team Bonus Program paid in fully vested Logitech shares. This provision was enforced for two officers in connection with the fiscal year 2014 bonuses. As of June 30, 2015, all of the executive officers and other officers who report directly to Chief Executive Officer had either satisfied these ownership guidelines or had time remaining to do so.

It is our policy that all employees must not engage in any activities which could conflict with Logitech’s business interests, which could adversely affect its reputation or which could interfere with the fulfillment of the responsibilities of the employee’s job, which at all times must be performed in the best interests of Logitech. In addition, Logitech employees may not use their position with Logitech, or Logitech’s information or assets, for their personal gain or for the improper benefit of others. These policies are included in our Business Ethics and Conflict of Interest Policy, which covers our directors,

executive officers and other employees. If in a particular circumstance the Board concludes that there is or may be a perceived conflict of interest, the Board will instruct our Legal department to work with our relevant business units to determine if there is a conflict of interest. Any waivers to these conflict rules with regard to a director or executive officer require the prior approval of the Board, and any transaction that is a related party transaction under U.S. securities laws must be approved by the Audit Committee or another independent committee of the Board.

Nasdaq rules defining “independent” director status also govern conflict of interest situations, as do Swiss best corporate governance principles published by economiesuisse, a leading Swiss business organization. As discussed above, the Board of Directors has determined that each of our directors and nominee to be a director, other than Mr. Borel, Mr. Darrell and Mr. De Luca, qualifies as “independent” in accordance with the Nasdaq rules. The Nasdaq rules include a series of objective tests that would not allow a director to be considered independent if

the director has or has had certain employment, business or family relationships with the company. The Nasdaq independence definition also includes a requirement that the Board review the relations between each independent director and the company on a subjective basis. In accordance with that review, the Board has made a subjective determination as to each independent director that no relationships exist that, in the opinion of the Board, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director.

In addition to the Logitech and Nasdaq policies and rules described above, the SEC has specific disclosure requirements covering certain types of transactions involving Logitech and a director or executive officer or persons and entities affiliated with them. Since April 1, 2014, we have not been a party to, and we have no plans to be a party to, any transaction or series of similar transactions in which the amount involved exceeded or will exceed US $120,000 and in which any current director, director nominee, executive officer, holder of more than 5% of our shares, or any member of the immediate family of any of the foregoing, had or will have a direct or indirect material interest. We have entered into an indemnification agreement with each of our directors and executive officers. The indemnification agreements require us to indemnify our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Swiss and California law.

None of the following persons has been indebted to Logitech or its subsidiaries at any time since the beginning of fiscal year 2015: any of our directors or executive officers; any nominee for election as a director; any member of the immediate family of any of our directors, executive officers or nominees for director; any corporation or organization of which any of our directors, executive officers or nominees is an executive officer or partner or is, directly or indirectly, the beneficial owner of 10% or more of any class of equity securities (except trade debt entered into in the ordinary course of business); and any trust or other estate in which any of the directors, executive officers or nominees for director has a substantial beneficial interest or for which such person serves as a trustee or in a similar capacity.

Under Logitech’s Articles of Incorporation, the shareholders elect or re-elect the Company’s independent auditors each year at the Annual General Meeting.

Logitech’s independent auditors for fiscal year 2015 were KPMG AG, Zurich, Switzerland. KPMG AG assumed its first audit mandate for Logitech in fiscal year 2015. They were elected by the shareholders as Logitech’s auditors at the Annual General Meeting in December 2014. For purposes of U.S. securities law reporting, KPMG LLP, Santa Clara, California, served as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2015. Together, KPMG AG and KPMG LLP are referred to as “KPMG.” As appointed by the Board, the Audit Committee is responsible for supervising the performance of the Company’s independent auditors, and recommends the election or replacement of the independent auditors to the Board of Directors.

Representatives of KPMG were invited to attend all regular meetings of the Audit Committee. During fiscal year 2015, KPMG representatives attended all of the Audit Committee meetings following the engagement of KPMG. The Committee met separately two times with representatives of KPMG in closed sessions of Committee meetings.

On a quarterly basis, KPMG reports on the findings of their audit and/or review work including their audit of Logitech’s internal control over financial reporting. These reports include their assessment of critical accounting policies and practices used, alternative treatments of financial information discussed with management, and other material written communication between KPMG and management. At each quarterly Board meeting, the Audit Committee reports to the full Board on the substance of the Committee meetings during the quarter. On an annual basis, the Audit Committee approves KPMG’s audit plan and evaluates the performance of KPMG and its senior representatives in fulfilling its responsibilities. Moreover,

the Audit Committee recommends to the Board the appointment or replacement of the independent auditors, subject to shareholder approval. The Audit Committee reviews the annual report provided by KPMG as to its independence.

Change in Independent Auditor

As disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on November 13, 2014, PricewaterhouseCoopers S.A. (referred to as “PwC S.A.”) and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (referred to as “PwC LLP” and, together with PwC S.A., referred to as “PwC”) declined to stand for re-election as Logitech’s independent auditors and as Logitech’s independent registered public accounting firm, respectively, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015. On November 12, 2014, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Audit Committee”) of Logitech appointed KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015 for purposes of U.S. securities law reporting purposes.

Information about PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

The reports of PwC on the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2013 and March 31, 2014 did not contain an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion; nor were they qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles. In connection with the audits of the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013 and in the subsequent interim period through November 6, 2014 there were no “disagreements” (as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K) with PwC LLP on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedures which, if not resolved to the satisfaction of PwC LLP would have caused PwC LLP to make reference to the matter in their reports.

There were “reportable events” (as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K) during the fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and March 31, 2013 and the subsequent interim period through November 6, 2014, as follows. On September 2, 2014 (U.S. time), the Company announced that the Audit Committee concluded that the consolidated financial statements for the years ended March 31, 2011 and 2012 included in Logitech’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 and for the three months ended June 30, 2011 included in Logitech’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2011 can no longer be relied on due to an accounting misstatement for inventory valuation reserves for Logitech’s now discontinued Revue product. The restated fiscal year 2012 consolidated financial statements are included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014. In addition, as previously disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, the Company’s management concluded that material weaknesses existed as of March 31, 2013, as follows:

In addition to these material weaknesses, which continued to exist as of March 31, 2014, as a result of the Audit Committee’s investigation and the restatement of the Company’s financial statements the Company’s management concluded that two additional material weaknesses existed as of March 31, 2014, including:

These material weaknesses, as well as the Company’s plans to remediate them, are set forth in Item 9A of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013 and in Item 9A of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014. Accordingly, the reports of PwC LLP on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2013 and as of March 31, 2014 as well as management’s reports as of the same date,

which were included in the Company’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014, respectively, contained qualified opinions thereon. The material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that the Company disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for Fiscal Year 2014 continued to exist during the subsequent interim period through November 6, 2014.

The Audit Committee discussed the subject matter of the reportable events with PwC. Other than as disclosed above, there were no reportable events during the fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013 and through the subsequent interim period through November 6, 2014.

Logitech provided PwC with a copy of the disclosure set forth in this section, which disclosure was set forth in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on November 13, 2014. PwC furnished Logitech with a letter addressed to the Securities and Exchange Commission stating their agreement with such disclosure. A copy of the letter was filed as Exhibit 16.1 to such Current Report on Form 8-K.

Information about KPMG LLP

On November 12, 2014, the Audit Committee appointed KPMG LLP to serve as its new independent registered public accounting firm to audit the Company’s financial

statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015. KPMG LLP’s engagement to serve as the Company’s new independent registered public accounting firm became effective on November 13, 2014.

During the Company’s two most recent fiscal years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013 and prior to engaging KPMG, neither the Company nor anyone on its behalf consulted KPMG regarding either: (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company’s financial statements, in connection with which either a written report or oral advice was provided to the Company that KPMG concluded was an important factor considered by the Company in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue; or (ii) any matter that was the subject of a disagreement or reportable event as defined in Regulation S-K, Item 304(a)(1)(iv) and Item 304(a)(1)(v), respectively.

The Company authorized PwC to respond fully and without limitation to all requests of KPMG concerning all matters related to the audited periods by PwC, including with respect to the subject matter of the reportable events summarized above.

The Audit Committee pre-approves all audit and non-audit services provided by KPMG. This pre-approval must occur before the auditor is engaged. The Audit Committee pre-approves categories of non-audit services and a target fee associated with each category. Usage of KPMG fees against the target is presented to the Audit Committee at each in-person quarterly meeting, with additional amounts requested as needed. Services that last longer than a year must be re-approved by the Audit Committee.

The Audit Committee can delegate the pre-approval ability to a single independent member of the Audit Committee. The delegate must communicate all services approved at the next scheduled Audit Committee meeting. The Audit Committee or its delegate can pre-approve types of services to be performed by KPMG with a set dollar limit per type of service. The Vice President, Corporate Controller is responsible for ensuring that the work performed is within the scope and dollar limit as approved by the Audit Committee. Management must report to the Audit Committee the status of each project or service provided by KPMG.

Section 16 of the Exchange Act requires Logitech’s directors, executive officers and any persons who own more than 10% of Logitech’s shares, to file initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership with the SEC. Such persons are required by SEC regulation to furnish Logitech with copies of all Section 16(a) forms that they file. As a matter of practice, our administrative staff assists our executive officers and directors in preparing initial ownership reports and reporting ownership changes, and typically files these reports on their behalf.

We believe that all Section 16(a) filing requirements were met in fiscal year 2015, with the exceptions noted below:

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis is intended to assist our shareholders in understanding our executive compensation program by providing an overview of our executive compensation-related policies, practices, and decisions for fiscal year 2015. It also explains how we determined the material elements of compensation for our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer, and the three executive officers (other than our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) who were our most highly-compensated executive officers for fiscal year 2015, and who we refer to as our “Named Executive

Officers.” For fiscal year 2015, our Named Executive Officers were:

The Compensation Committee believes the design of our executive compensation programs has and will continue to meet our goal of providing our executives with market-competitive compensation packages that provide for above market rewards when Logitech outperforms both our internal goals and the overall market, and limited rewards when Logitech’s performance does not meet these objectives. Overall, our Compensation Committee has developed executive compensation programs that it believes will provide an incentive to drive the Company’s performance and reward both our shareholders and our executives.

Business Highlights

During fiscal year 2015, Logitech had strong performance and good momentum in spite of currency headwinds. Excluding the non-cash goodwill impairment with respect to our video conferencing segment, we had the best operating income and earnings per share results since fiscal year 2008. Our performance reflected the many changes made to improve company sales with a significant increase in revenue in our growth category businesses while rigorously managing operating expenses to improve profitability. Please see the section entitled Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in our Annual Report for a more detailed discussion of our fiscal year 2015 financial results.

The annual compensation of our executive officers varies from year to year based on our corporate financial and operational results and individual performance. Our executive compensation program emphasizes “variable” performance-based pay over “fixed” pay and seeks to balance short-term and long-term incentives as well as performance-based and time-based incentives. In fiscal year 2015, the majority of the target total direct compensation of our CEO consisted of performance-based pay, including cash awarded under our annual

bonus plan and long-term incentives in the form of equity awards for which value is variable. Fixed pay, primarily consisting of base salary, made up only 13% of our CEO’s target total direct compensation in fiscal year 2015, while performance-based pay, consisting of both annual bonus and long-term equity incentives, made up 87% of his target total direct compensation. This same philosophy was applied to our other executive officers. The following charts show the percentages of target variable pay versus target fixed pay for fiscal year 2015:

Executive Compensation Best Practices

We strive to maintain sound executive compensation policies and practices, including compensation-related corporate governance standards, consistent with our executive compensation philosophy. We have the following executive compensation policies and practices in place, including both those that we have implemented to drive performance and policies and practices that either prohibit or minimize behaviors that we do not believe serve our shareholders’ long-term interests:

What We Do

What We Do Not Do

Say-on-Pay

Logitech has been a leader in providing our shareholders with an opportunity for advisory votes on compensation. Beginning in 2009, Logitech voluntarily submitted its compensation philosophy, policies, and procedures to a shareholder advisory vote. Our voluntary practice is now a requirement under U.S. legislation that provides shareholders the ability to periodically cast advisory votes on executive compensation, and is reflected in the proposals for our 2015 Annual General Meeting. We remain committed to providing clear and thorough disclosure on our executive compensation practices and actions, and our Compensation Committee will carefully consider the voting results.

Beginning this year, in compliance with the Minder Ordinance, we are also instituting binding shareholder votes on the aggregate compensation amounts for our directors and for members of our Group Management Team consistent with the compensation structure that shareholders approved in amendments to our Articles of Incorporation at our 2014 Annual General Meeting.

At our 2014 Annual General Meeting, more than 81% of the votes cast on our annual Say-on-Pay proposal supported our named executive officer compensation program. The Compensation Committee was mindful of shareholder support for our pay-for-performance compensation philosophy in maintaining our general compensation practices and setting fiscal year 2015 compensation for our executive officers. For more information regarding our annual Say-on-Pay proposal for fiscal year 2015, see Proposal 2 – Advisory vote to approve executive compensation.

We have designed our executive compensation program to:

However, while compensation is a central part of attracting, retaining, and motivating the best executives and employees, we believe it is not the sole or exclusive

reason why exceptional executives or employees choose to join and stay at Logitech, or why they work hard to achieve results for our shareholders. In this regard, both the Compensation Committee and management believe that providing a working environment and opportunities in which executives and employees can develop, express their individual potential, and make a difference are also a key part of Logitech’s success in attracting, motivating, and retaining executives and employees.

The Compensation Committee periodically reviews and analyzes market trends and the prevalence of various compensation delivery vehicles and adjusts the design and operation of our executive compensation program from time to time as it deems necessary and appropriate. In designing and implementing the various elements of our executive compensation program, the Compensation Committee considers market and industry practices, as well as our compensation structure’s tax efficiency and its impact on our financial condition. While the Compensation Committee considers all of these factors in its deliberations, it places no formal weighting on any one factor.

The Compensation Committee evaluates our compensation philosophy and program objectives as circumstances require. At a minimum, we expect the Compensation Committee to review executive compensation annually.

Role of the Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee, among its other responsibilities, establishes our overall compensation philosophy and reviews and approves our executive compensation program, including the specific compensation of our executive officers. The Compensation Committee has the authority to

retain special counsel and other advisors, including compensation consultants, to assist in carrying out its responsibilities. The Compensation Committee’s authority, duties, and responsibilities are described in its charter, which is reviewed annually and updated as warranted. The charter is available on our Company website at ir.logitech.com.

While the Compensation Committee determines our overall compensation philosophy and approves the compensation of our executive officers, it relies on its compensation consultants and legal counsel, as well as our CEO, our CFO, our Vice President of People & Culture, and our compensation department to formulate recommendations with respect to specific compensation actions. The Compensation Committee makes all final decisions regarding executive compensation, including base salary levels, target annual cash bonus opportunities, actual cash bonus payments, and long-term incentives in the form of equity awards. The Compensation Committee meets on a regularly-scheduled basis and at other times as needed. The Compensation Committee periodically reviews compensation matters with our Board of Directors. The chair of the Compensation Committee reports to the Board of Directors on the activities of the Compensation Committee at quarterly board meeting and the minutes of the Compensation Committee meetings are available to the members of the Board of Directors.

At the beginning of each year, the Compensation Committee reviews our executive compensation program to assess whether our compensation elements, actions, and decisions (i) are properly coordinated, (ii) are aligned with our vision, mission, values, and corporate goals, (iii) provide appropriate short-term and long-term incentives for our executive officers, (iv) achieve their intended purposes, and (v) are competitive with the compensation of executives in comparable positions at the companies with which we compete for executive talent. Following this assessment, the Compensation Committee makes any necessary or appropriate modifications to our existing plans and arrangements or adopts new plans or arrangements.

The Compensation Committee also conducts an annual review of our executive compensation strategy to ensure that it is appropriately aligned with our business strategy and achieving our desired objectives. Further,

the Compensation Committee reviews market trends and changes in competitive compensation practices, as further described below.

The factors considered by the Compensation Committee in determining the compensation of our executive officers for fiscal year 2015 included:

The Compensation Committee did not weight these factors in any predetermined or formulaic manner in making its decisions. The members of the Compensation Committee considered this information in light of their individual experience, knowledge of the Company, knowledge of each executive officer, knowledge of the competitive market, and business judgment in making their decisions regarding executive compensation and our executive compensation program.

As part of this process, our Executive Chairman works closely with the Compensation Committee in determining the compensation of our CEO. The Compensation Committee, in consultation with the non-employee members of the Board of Directors, also evaluates the performance of our Executive Chairman and our

CEO each year and makes all decisions regarding their base salary adjustments, target annual cash bonus opportunities, actual cash bonus payments, and long-term incentives in the form of equity awards. Our Executive Chairman and our CEO are not present during any of the deliberations regarding their compensation.

Role of our CEO

Our CEO works closely with the Compensation Committee in determining the compensation of our other executive officers, excluding our Executive Chairman. Typically, our CEO works with the Compensation Committee to recommend the structure of the annual bonus plan, and to identify and develop corporate performance objectives for such plan, and to evaluate actual performance against the selected measures.

At the beginning of each year, our CEO reviews the prior year’s performance of our executive officers who report to him and then makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee for each element of compensation. Using his evaluation of each executive officer’s performance and taking into consideration historical compensation awards to our executive officers and our corporate performance during the preceding year, these recommendations cover base salary adjustments, target annual cash bonus opportunities, actual bonus payments, and long-term incentives in the form of equity awards for each of our executive officers (other than himself and our Executive Chairman) based on our results, the individual executive officer’s contribution to these results, and his or her performance toward achieving his or her individual performance goals. The Compensation Committee then reviews these recommendations and makes decisions as to the target total direct compensation of each executive officer, as well as each individual compensation element.

While the Compensation Committee considers our CEO’s recommendations, as well as the competitive market analysis prepared by its compensation consultant, these

recommendations and market data serve as only two of several factors in making its decisions with respect to the compensation of our executive officers. Ultimately, the Compensation Committee applies its own business judgment and experience to determine the individual compensation elements and amount of each element for our executive officers. Moreover, no executive officer participates in the determination of the amounts or elements of his or her own compensation.

Role of Compensation Consultants

Pursuant to its charter, the Compensation Committee has the authority to engage its own legal counsel and other advisors, including compensation consultants, as it determines in its sole discretion, to assist in carrying out its responsibilities. The Compensation Committee makes all determinations regarding the engagement, fees, and services of these advisors, and any such advisor reports directly to the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee may replace its compensation consultant or hire additional advisors at any time.

In fiscal year 2015, pursuant to this authority, the Compensation Committee engaged national compensation consulting firms Radford for the majority of fiscal year 2015 and Compensia, Inc., in December 2014. The Compensation Committee also engaged Swiss compensation consulting firm Agnès Blust Consulting in September 2014. The Compensation Committee engages compensation consultants to provide information, analysis, and other assistance relating to our executive compensation program on an ongoing basis. The nature and scope of the services provided to the Compensation Committee by the independent compensation consultants in fiscal year 2015 were as follows:

The independent compensation consultants attend Compensation Committee meetings as requested and also communicate with the Compensation Committee outside of meetings. The compensation consultants report to the Compensation Committee rather than to management, although the compensation consultants typically meet with members of management, including our CEO and members of our executive compensation staff, for purposes of gathering information on proposals that management may make to the Compensation Committee.

The Compensation Committee has assessed the independence of the compensation consultants taking into account, among other things, the six independence related factors as set forth in Exchange Act Rule 10C-1 issued by the SEC under the Dodd-Frank Act and the enhanced independence standards and factors set forth in the applicable listing standards of the Nasdaq Stock Market, and has concluded that its relationship with each independent compensation consultant and the work of each of them on behalf of the Compensation Committee has not raised any conflict of interest.

Logitech paid fees of less than $200,000 to various divisions and subsidiaries of Aon Corporation for services not related to executive compensation

consulting services. The majority of these additional services consisted of activities Radford or Aon Hewitt have provided to Logitech for several years, and include the purchase of Radford’s industry compensation surveys, the accounting valuations of equity grants, and the calculation of PSU grant performance. Compensia and Agnès Blust Consulting have not provided any other services to us and have received no compensation other than with respect to the services described above.

Compensation Peer Group

As part of its deliberations, the Compensation Committee considers competitive market data on executive compensation levels and practices and a related analysis of such data. This data is drawn from a select group of peer companies developed by the Compensation Committee, as well as compensation survey data.

Fiscal Year 2015 Compensation Peer Group

For fiscal year 2015, the Compensation Committee directed its compensation consultant to formulate a group of peer companies to be used as a reference for market positioning and for assessing competitive market practices. The compensation consultant undertook a detailed review of the pool of U.S.-based publicly-traded companies, taking into consideration involvement in the PC-based consumer electronics industry, revenues approximately equal to Logitech’s and a presence near Silicon Valley in the San Francisco Bay Area. Although we are a Swiss company, we primarily compete for executive management talent with technology companies in the United States, and particularly in the high-technology area of Silicon Valley.

This compensation peer group was used by the Compensation Committee in connection with its annual review of our executive compensation program in fiscal year 2015. Specifically, the Compensation Committee reviewed the compensation data drawn from the compensation peer group, in combination with industry-specific compensation survey data, to develop a subjective representation of the “competitive market”

with respect to current executive compensation levels and related policies and practices. The Compensation Committee then evaluated how our pay practices and the compensation levels of our executive officers compared to the competitive market. As part of this evaluation, the Compensation Committee also reviewed the performance measures and performance goals generally used within the competitive market to reward performance.

The Compensation Committee believes that information regarding the compensation practices at other companies is useful in at least two respects. First, the Compensation Committee recognizes that our compensation policies and practices must be competitive in the marketplace. Second, this information is useful in assessing the

reasonableness and appropriateness of individual executive compensation elements and of our overall executive compensation packages. This information is only one of several factors that the Compensation Committee considers, however, in making its decisions with respect to the compensation of our executive officers.

Our executive officers also participate in the standard employee benefit plans available to most of our employees. In addition, during fiscal year 2015, our executive officers were eligible for post-employment (severance or change in control or both) payments and benefits under certain circumstances. Each of these compensation elements is discussed in greater detail below, including a description of the particular elements and how each element fits into our overall executive compensation and a discussion of the amounts of compensation paid to our executive officers in fiscal year 2015 under each of these elements.

Base Salary

We believe that a competitive base salary is a necessary element of our executive compensation program, so that we can attract and retain a stable management team. Base salaries for our executive officers are also intended to be competitive with those received by other individuals in similar positions at the companies with which we compete for talent, as well as equitable across the executive team.

Generally, we establish the initial base salaries of our executive officers through arm’s-length negotiation at the time we hire the individual executive officer, taking into

account his or her position, qualifications, experience, prior salary level, competitive and market considerations, and the base salaries of our other executive officers.

Thereafter, the Compensation Committee reviews the base salaries of our executive officers annually and makes adjustments to base salaries as it determines to be necessary or appropriate.

In fiscal year 2015, the Compensation Committee reviewed the base salaries of our executive officers, taking into consideration a competitive market analysis performed by the then current compensation consultant, the scope of each executive officer’s role, and the

recommendations of our CEO (except with respect to his own base salary and the base salary of our Executive Chairman), as well as the other factors described above. Following this review, the Compensation Committee set the base salaries of our executive officers at levels that it believed were appropriate to maintain their competitiveness. In review of Mr. Darrell’s compensation, the Compensation Committee decided to provide a base salary increase to Mr. Darrell to bring his target cash compensation in line with the CEOs in our compensation peer group. The base salaries of our executive officers for fiscal year 2015 were as follows:

The base salaries of our executive officers during fiscal year 2015 are set forth in the “2015 Summary Compensation Table” below.

Annual Cash Bonuses

We use annual bonuses to motivate our executive officers to achieve our short-term financial and operational objectives while making progress towards our longer-term growth and other goals. Consistent with our executive compensation philosophy, these annual bonuses are intended to help us to deliver a competitive total compensation opportunity to our executive officers. Annual cash bonuses are entirely performance-based, are not guaranteed, and may vary materially from year-to-year.

Typically, the Compensation Committee establishes cash bonus opportunities pursuant to a formal cash bonus plan that measures and rewards our executive officers

for our actual corporate and their individual performance over our fiscal year. The cash bonus plan is designed to pay above-target bonuses when we exceed our annual corporate objectives and below-target bonuses or no bonus when we do not achieve these objectives.

In fiscal year 2015, the Compensation Committee determined cash bonus opportunities for our executive officers pursuant to the cash bonus plan for fiscal year 2015 under the Logitech Management Performance Bonus Plan (the “Bonus Plan”). Under the Bonus Plan, the Compensation Committee had the authority to select the performance measures and related target levels applicable to the annual cash bonus opportunities for our executive officers.

In setting the amount of the target incentive, the Compensation Committee takes into account competitive market data and the individual’s role and contribution to performance. In review of Mr. Darrell’s compensation, the Compensation Committee decided to increase his bonus target opportunity for fiscal year 2015 from 100% to 125% of base salary to bring his target cash compensation in line with the CEOs in our compensation peer group. No changes were made to target bonus opportunities for the rest of the executive officers for fiscal year 2015.

Corporate Performance Objectives

For purposes of the Bonus Plan, the Compensation Committee selected Revenue and Non-GAAP Operating Income as the corporate performance measures. Each of these corporate performance measures was equally weighted. The Compensation Committee believed these performance measures were appropriate for our business because they provided a balance between generating revenue, managing our expenses, increasing profitability, and growing our business, which it believes

most directly influences long-term shareholder value. The Compensation Committee established target performance levels for each of these measures at levels that it believed to be challenging, but attainable, through the successful execution of our Board approved annual operating plan.

For purposes of the Bonus Plan, the corporate performance measures were to be calculated as follows:

The minimum, target, and maximum levels of achievement for each corporate performance measure and their respective payment levels were as follows:

For any bonus payment to be made under the fiscal year 2015 Bonus Plan, the minimum performance requirements must both be met for each of the plan metrics. In the event of actual performance between the threshold and target, and target and maximum, performance levels, the payment amount was to be calculated between each designated segment on a linear basis.

The Compensation Committee established the following target levels for each of the corporate performance measures under the Bonus Plan:

Individual and Business Group Performance

For executive officers who are business group or regional leaders we factor in metrics with respect to their areas of responsibility, all of which the Compensation Committee believes are critical to driving long-term shareholder value. As a result, Mr. Stolk’s annual bonus was based 50% on achievement of the corporate performance measures described above and 50% on measures specific to the performance of the business group for which he is responsible.

In addition to the corporate performance objectives, 25% of the annual cash bonuses for our executive officers, other than our CEO and our Executive Chairman, could be adjusted based on each executive officer’s individual performance and other exogenous factors as reviewed and assessed by our CEO.

2015 Performance Results and Bonus Decisions

For fiscal year 2015, the Compensation Committee determined that our actual achievement with respect to the corporate financial objectives under the Bonus Plan was as follows:

Historically we have measured our annual performance results in U.S. Dollars which have included normal currency fluctuations, however, for fiscal year 2015, based on the unusual and unprecedented level of currency fluctuation during the second half of the 2015 fiscal year and our strong performance, the Compensation Committee exercised its discretion and approved the fiscal year 2015 revenue results using constant currency which

is a common approach among many other companies and is how we will measure revenue performance going forward under the Bonus Plan. Currencies of many countries depreciated significantly against the dollar in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, including by up to 17% in Euro-based countries, far beyond the normal fluctuations. Based on management’s recommendation and consistent with the presentation of our financial results to investors,

the constant currency adjustment was made only to the revenue metric and not to the non-GAAP operating income performance measure. The Compensation Committee determined that, based on our actual performance with respect to each corporate performance measure on a constant currency sales basis, as applicable, the corporate performance objectives had been achieved, in the aggregate, at a 113% level. Based on our CEO’s review of individual performance for fiscal year 2015, the CEO recommended, and the Compensation Committee agreed and determined, that Mr. Pilette receive an annual incentive at 140% of target. The Compensation Committee determined that this bonus amount appropriately reflected not only Mr. Pilette’s strong performance in reducing operating expenses, and contributing to the good 113% performance of the company, but also the additional and highly intensive tasks of leading and helping to resolve the Company’s internal accounting investigation and

restatement of financial statements based on issues that predated his tenure, reorganizing and enhancing the finance and accounting organization to remediate material weaknesses that also predated his tenure, and assisting with the transition to new auditors upon PwC’s independence issue to preserve the Company’s ability to file its fiscal year 2014 and 2015 periodic reports.

Mr. Stolk received an annual incentive at 121% of target based on achievement of the corporate performance measures described above and business group performance for which he is responsible.

Based on its review of our overall corporate and business group performance, and taking into account the CEO’s recommendations with respect to individual performance for the executive officers other than himself and the Executive Chairman, the Compensation Committee approved bonus payments as follows for our executive officers for fiscal year 2015:

The annual cash bonuses paid to our executive officers for fiscal 2015 are set forth in the “2015 Summary Compensation Table” below.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation

We use long-term incentive compensation in the form of equity awards to motivate our executive officers by providing them with the opportunity to build an equity interest in the Company and to share in the potential appreciation of the value of our registered shares. We primarily use restricted stock unit (“RSU”) awards that may be settled for shares of our common stock as the

principal vehicles for delivering long-term incentive compensation opportunities to our executive officers. The Compensation Committee views equity awards, whether the awards are subject to time-based vesting requirements or are to be earned based on the attainment of specific performance objectives, as inherently variable since the grant date fair value of these awards may not necessarily be indicative of their value when, and if, our registered shares underlying these awards are ever earned or purchased. The Compensation Committee further believes these awards enable us to attract and retain key talent in our industry and aligns our executive

officers’ interests with the long-term interests of our shareholders. The Compensation Committee uses RSUs because they are less dilutive than stock options.

At the beginning of fiscal year 2015, the Compensation Committee approved equity awards for four of our executive officers in recognition of our financial results and each executive officer’s individual performance for fiscal year 2014. In determining the amount of each executive officer’s equity award, the Compensation Committee took into consideration the recommendations of our CEO (except with respect to his own equity award and the Executive Chairman’s equity award), as well as the factors described above. The Compensation Committee considers the dilutive effect of our long-term incentive compensation practices, and the overall impact that these equity awards, as well as awards to other employees, will have on shareholder value. The Compensation Committee also considered the existing equity holdings of each executive officer, including the current economic value of their unvested equity awards and the ability of these unvested holdings to satisfy our retention objectives.

The Compensation Committee did not grant an award to our CFO, Mr. Pilette, at the beginning of fiscal year 2015 since he had recently joined the company and received a new-hire grant at the start of his employment in September 2013. In March 2015, based on Mr. Pilette’s extraordinary performance during fiscal year 2015 and taking into consideration Mr. Pilette’s unvested equity at the time of the grant and the competitive market for strong CFOs in Silicon Valley, the Compensation Committee approved

an equity award for Mr. Pilette for fiscal year 2015. Due to the timing of Mr. Pilette’s award, the Compensation Committee structured the grant consistent with the PSU structure approved by the Compensation Committee for fiscal year 2016 including a second financial metric to the PSU awards. The Compensation Committee believes that measuring a company’s performance with multiple metrics will provide a more complete picture of the Company’s performance. Mr. Pilette’s PSU grant was based on two performance measures – 50% on Logitech’s relative TSR described below and 50% on achievement of a Non-GAAP Operating Margin metric. Under this portion of the award, 100% of the shares will be earned when Logitech achieves a targeted level of Non-GAAP Operating Margin over four consecutive trailing quarters in a three-year performance period. The award will vest annually over three years; however, no shares will vest until we have achieved the targeted Non-GAAP Operating Margin.

The equity awards for our executive officers were composed of 60% performance-based RSUs (“PSUs”) and 40% time-based RSUs that may be settled for our registered shares, except for Mr. Pilette, who received his award as 50% PSUs and 50% time-based RSUs. During fiscal year 2015, as part of the Compensation Committee’s risk analysis, it determined that certain roles within our finance department, including our CFO, should receive more of their equity in time-based RSUs than awards based on financial results. The equity awards granted to our executive officers in fiscal year 2015 were as follows: