Document 99wJ0gx37me8bO35v3vOgM3G3

ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY TICKER: MON GICS SUB-INDUSTRY: Fertilizers & Agricultural Chemicals COUNTRY: US LAST UPDATE: Dec 16, 2016 * MEDIA REVIEW: Conducted weekly; no new updates since date of Last Update PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD VEST SCORE O/io V LOWEST FLAG G Significant Controversies by Indicator Environment Biodiversity & Land Use Social Customers Anticompetitive Practices Customer Relations Other (Customers) Product Safety & Quality Human Rights & Community Impact on Local Communities Labor Rights & Supply Chain No controversies were uncovered. Governance Bribery & Fraud Flag Score 0 o0 l o l 4 1 1 o 3 1 1 10 o 3 3 Summary Monsanto continues to face very severe controversies related to the environmental impact of its GMO products. NGOs and local farmers worldwide have alleged that the contamination of non-GM crop fields with strains of genetically modified crops have contributed to the decline, if not the eradication, of local and indigenous crops. GMOs allegedly contribute to biodiversity damage and ecological disruption - particularly the decline of the population of natural pollinators such monarchs and bees. The company's genetically modified products have been regulated if not completely banned in more than 60 countries. The company has also been heavily criticized for initiating patent litigation against and collecting royalties from local framers around the world for cultivating its GM crops. Additionally, Monsanto continues to be involved in lawsuits in the U.S., Canada, South Korea and Vietnam for human rights and health-related claims raised by war veterans and civilians who were exposed to its former herbicide product known as Agent Orange. In 2015, glyphosate, marketed under the brand Roundup, began to undergo scrutiny by health, food and substance safety agencies around the world following an assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer {IARC), which classified the chemical as a "probable carcinogen." The IARC finding triggered numerous institutions to conduct individual studies to determine the carcinogenic properties of glyphosate. Global Compact Compliance: Fail # of Controversy Cases by ESG Pillar (32 in total) Very Severe Severe Moderate Minor Environment Social Governance For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. Mqri m | M SC I ESG PAGE 1 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 1 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570350 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY V MOST RECENT UPDATES (past 12 months) Controversy Headline Roundup-related Injury Lawsuits Spokane City Lawsuit: Alleged Contamination of Local River with PCB WHO Agency Declares Glyphosate as "Probably Carcinogenic" to Humans Type of Update New Information Personal Injury Claims Related to PCBs CCI Investigation into Allegedly Unreasonable Royalties for GM Cotton Seeds in India Assessment Indicator Last Reviewed Moderate Product Safety & Quality November 2016 Minor Toxic Emissions & Waste November 2016 Moderate Product Safety & Quality September 2016 Impact on Local Moderate Communities September 2016 Moderate Customer Relations September 2016 MOST SIGNIFICANT CONTROVERSIES Controversy Headline Environmental Concerns over GMO Crops Brazilian Soy Farmers Royalty Lawsuit Lawsuits Concerning Agent Orange Patent Enforcement Practices Protests Against Cordoba Plant Assessment Very Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Indicator Biodiversity & Land Use Customer Relations Impact on Local Communities Other Impact on Local Communities For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 2 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 2 of 38 SVEC OLDMONS0570351 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Environment ENVIRONMENT CONTROVERSIES 0 Indicators Biodiversity & Land Use Energy & Climate Change Operational Waste (Non-Hazardous) Other (Environment) Supply Chain Management Toxic Emissions & Waste Water Stress A Controversies 0 Flag Score Assessment Q 0 Very Severe 10 No Controversies 10 No Controversies 10 No Controversies 10 No Controversies 5 Moderate 10 No Controversies Biodiversity & Land Use Very Severe Cases: Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: June 2016 January 2009 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: Global Compact Compliance: Very Severe Structural Ongoing Score:0 Fail Very Severe Severe Moderate Minor # of Cases: 1 0 2 1 Flag Score* Type Assessment Q 0 Structural Very Severe Environmental Concerns over GMO Crops Impact St Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extremely Widespread Nature of Harm: Very Serious Assessment Change Rationale: The very severe rating for this controversy has been maintained due to the following reasons: Claims by local farmers worldwide regarding GM crop contamination remain persistent. Local farmers have alleged that the exposure of non-GM crop fields to strains of Monsanto's genetically engineered crops have resulted in the decline, if not the eradication of indigenous and local crops. Studies conducted by environmental group, Center for Food Safety have revealed that the sustained cultivation of Monsanto's herbicide-resistant crops contributed to the significant decline of the population of natural pollinators, including certain species of bees and butterflies. GM crop cultivation which requires the use of specialized herbicides, purportedly destroy natural vegetation which is the source of sustenance for bees and butterflies. Of particular concern is the monarch butterfly population has decreased by as much as 10 percent in the last 20 years due to the eradication of milkweed, the primary food source and larval host plant for the butterfly species' caterpillar. Monsanto has been heavily criticized over its continued development of genetically modified (GM) crops. Claims regarding the damage to biodiversity brought about by the company's GM products have been prevalent. Environmentalists have alleged that the sustained cultivation of Monsanto's herbicide-resistant crops contributed to the significant decline of the population of natural pollinators, including certain species of bees and butterflies. In addition, local farmers have expressed concerns regarding GM crop contamination, alleging that the exposure of non-GM crop fields to strains of genetically engineered crops has resulted in the decline and eradication of indigenous and local crops. For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 3 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 3 of 38 SVEC OLDMONS0570352 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Monsanto's GM products continue to face opposition from communities worldwide, as well as local and international NGOs in more than 50 countries. Regulatory bodies in Europe and the US have also challenged the company's promotion of the controversial crops. NGO and Community Opposition As of August 2016, numerous international and local non-governmental organizations had active campaigns against Monsanto. These included: the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, People's Health Network, Save Our Crops Coalition, Biodiversidadla, Friends of the Earth, Combat Monsanto, Organic Consumers Association, March Against Monsanto, GM Watch and the Non-GMO Project, among others Since May 2013, international group March Against Monsanto (MAM) launched global protest actions against Monsanto's GM crops. The demonstrations ensued in approximately 400 cities in 57 countries with participants numbering in hundreds of thousands. Protesters highlighted concerns, including the mandatory labeling of GM products; the alleged negative health effects resulting from the consumption of GM crops; as well as the purported damage to biodiversity and ecological disruption the controversial products cause with their entry into local agriculture in various countries. In August 2013, the Save Our Crops Coalition, a group of farmers based in Indiana, filed a comment with the U.S. Department of Agriculture urging a more in-depth review of Monsanto's genetically modified soybeans and cotton. In 2011, NGO opposition to the planting of GM crops in Mexico continued. Monsanto was given authorization from the Mexican government to plant GM yellow corn resistant to the herbicide glyphosate as a part of a pilot program in Tamaulipas, a region home to 16 of the 59 remaining strains of native corn. According to environmental groups, Monsanto had engaged in intense lobbying in favor of the introduction of GM corn in Mexico. In addition, a former president of Monsanto allegedly held meetings with the governor of Chaco, Argentina, to promote the use of GM food in the province. According to a representative of the NGO People's Health Network, this led to less criticism from authorities regarding the allegedly harmful effects of pesticides. According to the Commission of Investigation of Contaminants of the Chaco Water, child cancer rates had tripled and malformation in newborn babies had increased by 400 percent in the Leonesa area due to the pesticides used in conjunction with the GM crops. In March 2011, a group of U.S. organic agricultural organizations, headed by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Manhattan, New York against Monsanto to challenge its patents on genetically modified seeds. The plaintiffs launched the legal action preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they become contaminated by Monsanto's GM seeds. The district court dismissed the case in January 2012 ruling that the farmers lacked legal standing regarding the concerns over the potential contamination and consequential economic impact. The court also declared that the decision was made on grounds that the complainants' crops were not yet contaminated despite recognizing that some contamination was "inevitable." The plaintiffs subsequently brought the lawsuit to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which also dismissed the case in June 2013 on the same grounds. In the proceeding, the appeals court highlighted that the company, "made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land)."' In September 2013, the plaintiffs appealed to the US Supreme Court to get full protection from potential infringement. In January 2014, the court refused to hear the case. Regulatory Opposition According to the NGO Non-GMO Project, more than 60 countries including Australia, Japan, and all the members of the European Union have partial if not absolute restrictions on GM crops. As of March 2016, approximately 19 European countries have opted out from cultivating GMO crops. These include Austria, Belgium for the Walionia region, Britain for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia. For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 4 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 4 of 38 SVEC OLDMONS0570353 As of April 2016, six European countries have imposed a complete ban on Monsanto's genetically modified strain of maize called MON810: Britain, Germany, Bulgaria, Austria, Luxembourg, Poland, Italy and Romania. France had previously banned MON810, but a court subsequently overturned the supporting legislation. Nevertheless, the French Agriculture Ministry stated that the court's decision did not permit GM maize to be cultivated in the country. In September 2015, France declared that it will exercise its opt-out rights under the EU's revised legislation for GM cultivation. The country has declared opposition to the cultivation of approximately nine GM maize strains manufactured by Monsanto, Du Pont, and Syngenta. In the same month, Russia also declared a ban on the use of genetically modified organisms in food production. in January 2015, the European Parliament passed a legislation allowing EU member states to individually decide on restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of GMO crops in their territory. The law also allows national governments to opt out from growing GMO crops that have already been authorized by the EU. In May 2013, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it would not allow the production of Monsanto's dicamba-resistant cotton and soybeans, as well as Dow Chemical's corn and soybeans until at least 2015. The department stated that the products could damage the environment and that it would need to produce complete environmental assessments prior to issuing approval. In September 2009, a federal judge ruled that the USDA had unlawfully approved Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugarbeets for use by farmers. The judge ruled that a full environmental assessment of the sugar beets had not been completed at the time that the sugar beets were approved. The case was brought to trial by the Center for Food Safety, a consumer and environmental advocacy group that sought to ban GM sugarbeets. The group's primary concern was the cross-pollination of the GMO beets with native species. Monarch Population Decline In February 2015, environmental group Center for Food Safety (CFS) released a report on the purported negative impact of the cultivation of herbicide-resistant genetically modified crops on the monarch butterfly. According to the report, the monarch population has decreased by as much as 10 percent in the last 20 years due to the eradication of milkweed, the primary food source and larval host plant for the butterfly species' caterpillar. Glyphosate which is used in conjunction with GM corn and soybeans is particularly lethal to milkweed. The CFS report stipulated that the sustained use of the herbicide resulted in the loss of approximately 99 percent of milkweed in the Midwestern croplands in the U.S. which is the main breeding habitat of monarchs. In light of the findings, CFS, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation along with biologists specializing in the study of monarchs, filed a legal petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect monarchs as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In December 2014, the institution announced that the ESA listing may be warranted. In May 2015, Monsanto pledged to donate USD 4 million to initiatives aimed at preserving the monarch butterfly. According to the company, USD 3.6 would be donated to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund and USD 400,000 will be contributed to experts and groups working to protect the butterfly. As of March 2016, Monsanto has been collaborating with various environmental NGOs and academic institutions in launching initiatives aimed at protecting the monarch and restoring its habitat. The company has pledged to participate in several environmental programs including the expansion and improvement of more than 10 million acres of land by 2025 as part of a habitat distribution for the butterfly species; as well as the provision of funding to conservation groups to further restore sustainable quality milkweed and pollinator habitat across the critical range for monarch breeding and migration. Bee Population Decline For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 5 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 5 of 38 SVEC OLDMONS0570354 Monsanto continued to face allegations of its contribution to the worldwide decline in bee population. NGOs and environmental experts have identified the company's herbicide-resistant genetically modified crops and the pesticides used to treat them as among the causes of colony collapse disorder (CCD) - a phenomenon which causes the death of a colony due to the disappearance of majority of the worker bees in a hive, leaving behind a queen and food reserves but a few nurse bees to care for the remaining immature bees and the queen. CCD has been attributed to neonicotinoids which are commonly used to treat GM corn and soybeans. Environmental scientists who have conducted studies on bee population in the U.S. and Europe have claimed that the substances attack the central nervous system of insects, resulting in memory impairment, damaged navigational capabilities, and paralysis. Also associated with bee fatalities are GMO crops engineered to produce natural insecticides. Such GM varieties manifest the harmful substances in proteins within plant pollen and nectar during cultivation and cause poisoning to adult bees and their larvae. Studies conducted on Monsanto's Mon810 corn revealed that the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which it produces, allegedly damages the digestive and immune system of bees. Bt purportedly reduces bees' capacity to eat then destroys their intestinal wall, eventually exposing the insect to spores and bacteria that would have been contained within the digestive tract. As of March 2016, Monsanto has launched various initiatives aimed at improving honey bee health. These include: allocation of resources for land development to establish and expand healthy pollinator habitats; establishment of Honey Bee Advisory Council to facilitate honey bee health research; formulation of a seed treatment insecticide stewardship plan to manage risks to beneficial insects such as bees; collaboration with academics, environmental NGOs, and farmers to identify issues and development pathways for honey bee health. Company Response: Denied allegations. Monsanto has actively defended itself from the prevalent opposition to its GM crops worldwide. The company maintains that GM crops are as safe as any other crop. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Although Monsanto does not have group-wide initiatives to reduce its hazardous emissions or waste, the company has made improvements to its environmental management system which could have a positive influence on its oversight of global operations. The company's environmental, health, and safety policy applies to all global operations and its Crop Protection operations are certified to the ISO 14001 standard for environmental management systems, which represents approximately 18% of the company's total employees. Additionally, all manufacturing facilities, farms, and research facilities are covered under Monsanto's auditing program. However, the company does not commit to quantifiable targets and does not highlight process adjustments to reduce its environmental impact. While Monsanto's NOx emissions intensity is above the industry average (0.3 tons of NOx/million USD sales vs. 0.2 industry average), the company's SOx and VOC emissions intensities are below industry averages. Most significantly, between 2009 and 2012, the company's hazardous waste intensity decreased by 16.6% CAGR. Although this improvement trend is a positive key performance indicator for Monsanto, the company continues to lag behind peers in terms of implementing process changes and committing to quantifiable emissions and waste reduction targets. Upgrade Conditions/Company Engagement Points: The very severe assessment for this controversy could be upgraded when: Monsanto implements significant measures to mitigate its impact on the decline of natural pollinators. These could include the efforts to coordinate with local governments and environmentalists to define the habitats or migratory routes of natural pollinators and limit or restrict the cultivation of GM crops in close proximity to these areas. For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 6 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 6 of 38 SVEC OLDMONS0570355 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY A The company develops effective control mechanisms to limit the contamination of non-GM fields with GM crops. Monsanto reaches a settlement with affected farmers which includes crop remediation measures to restore the biological integrity of indigenous crops. Source: 15 Jun 2016_Friends of the Earth; 15 Apr 2016_Reuters; 18 Mar 2016_GMO-Free Europe; 09 Fe b 2016_Company Communication; 05 Oct 2015_EcoWatch; 20 Sep 2015_The Moscow Times; 17 Sep 20 15: _Reuters; 13 Jan 2015_BBC News; 31 Mar 2015_ASSOCIATED PRESS STATE & LOCAL; 24 Feb 2015_G MO-free Europe (website); 04 Feb 2015_Monarchs in Peril (Consumer Food Safety);; 13 May 2014_Busin ess Insider; 04 Mar 2014_GuardianLV; 2014/3/15_RFI; 2014/3/15_Reuters; 2013/10/14_The Asheville C itizen-Times (North Carolina); 2013/10/12_Naples Daily News; 2013/10/12_FOX-2 KTVI (St. Louis); 201 3/10/ll_Orange County Register (California); 2013/10/04_Progressive Media-Company News; 2013/0 7/28_The Hawk Eye (Burlington, lowa);2013/05/ll_The New York Times; 01 Apr2013_Greenpeace; 201 l/08/31_Reuters, 2011/09/06_Greenpeace Luxembourg, 2011/08/17_biodiversidadla.org, 2011/03/3 l_radiomundoreal.fm, 2011/03/29_cipamericas.org, 2011/03/10_www.paginal2.com.ar Moderate Cases: Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: August 2016 May 2013 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass Lawsuits over Alleged Contamination of Pacific Northwest Fields with Genetically Modified Wheat Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact; Extensive Nature of Harm: Medium Monsanto has agreed to pay approximately USD 2.4 million to settle litigation related to the alleged contamination of wheat fields in certain U.S. Pacific Northwest states by its genetically modified (GM) wheat. The GM wheat variant was not approved by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for cultivation. After the crop was discovered in Oregon and Washington in 2013, affected wheat farmers launched legal action. Subsequently, all related lawsuits were consolidated under one case in the Federal District Court of Kansas. The settlement does not resolve contamination claims in Arkansas. As of March 2016, these remained ongoing. UPDATES: 05 Aug 2016: Quarantined Washington state wheat tests negative for GMO: USDA. (Reuters) 29 Jul 2016: USDA confirms unapproved GMO wheat found in Washington state. (Reuters) [accessed on Mar 7 2016]: Newsroom. (Monsanto website) As of March 2016, litigation on the grain contamination claims in Arkansas was ongoing. 18 Mar 2015: Monsanto to pay $350K to settle more wheat-related lawsuits. (ASSOCIATED PRESS FINANCIAL WIRE) In addition to the settlement amount the company pledged to make donations of USD 50,000 to agricultural schools at land grant colleges in Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Monsanto also declared that as of March 2015, there is one active wheat contamination lawsuit in Arkansas that remains pending. 18 Mar 2015: Monsanto to pay $350K to settle more wheat-related lawsuits. (ASSOCIATED PRESS FINANCIAL WIRE) For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 7 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 7 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570356 In addition to the settlement amount the company pledged to make donations of USD 50,000 to agricultural schools at land grant colleges in Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.Monsanto also declared that as of March 2015, there is one active wheat contamination lawsuit in Arkansas that remains active. 21 Jan 2015: Monsanto reaches $2.4M settlement with wheat farmers in Pacific Northwest in. (CANADIAN GOVERNMENT NEWS) BACKGROUND In May 2013, a farmer from northeastern Oregon filed a report to the USDA stating that he discovered a strain of genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant wheat after using Monsanto's Roundup Ready pesticide on his field. After conducting an investigation, the USDA announced that the wheat discovered by the farmer was identical to the wheat variant which underwent testing as part of Monsanto's research from 1998 to 2004. However, the genetically modified wheat was not approved by the USDA. The Japanese and Korean Government restricted the shipment of Western White wheat following the May 2013 announcement. In response to the Oregon discovery, Monsanto claimed that it had discontinued its research on the genetically modified wheat in question and that the re-emergence of the variant was unusual, as all the seeds involved in its research could not have survived in the soil for more than two years. Further, the company stated that its research was not conducted in northeastern Oregon, and that wheat pollen only moves approximately 30 feet from its source. In June 2013, as part of a larger investigation into the genetically modified wheat previously found in northeastern Oregon, Monsanto tested 30,000 seed samples of 50 different wheat varieties in Washington and Oregon. The company concluded that none of the wheat varieties it tested proved to be genetically modified, and that the discovery of genetically modified wheat in northeastern Oregon was an isolated incident. The discovery of GM wheat in Oregon sparked numerous lawsuits from farmers. In June 2013, two class action lawsuits were filed against Monsanto at the United States District Court in Spokane alleging that the discovery of genetically engineered wheat in Oregon negatively affected their businesses. The first lawsuit was filed by farmers representing two wheat farms in Eastern Washington, Wahl Ranch in Adams County and Dreger Enterprises in Lincoln County. The damages of this lawsuit would be determined by the court. A separate lawsuit was filed by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of Northwest wheat farmers. Clarmar Farms and another wheat farmer were also named as plaintiffs of the lawsuit. Later in the month, a wheat farmer from Kansas filed a lawsuit seeking class action status against the company. The lawsuit alleged that the company's genetically modified wheat infiltrated non-genetically engineered wheat. Since genetically engineered wheat was not approved by the USDA, the cost of producing wheat increased and prices plummeted. Monsanto reported that as of November 2013, the USDA's investigation on the claims with regard to the specific GM crop remains ongoing and the agency indicated that civil and criminal penalties could be imposed if circumstances warranted. According to the company, lawsuits filed against it concerning the wheat variety in question have been consolidated in the Federal District Court of Kansas. Company Response: Acknowledged or settled controversy. Aug 2014: Monsanto declared that it discontinued the development of the genetically modified wheat variant in question in 2005, in compliance with USDA regulations. Source: 05 Aug 2016_Reuters; 2013/ll/30_Monsanto 2013 10-Q Report; 2013/06/06_The Seattle Tim es; 2013/06/05_The Wall Street Journal; 2013/06/04_RT; 2013/06/03_The Wall Street Journal For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 8 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 8 of 38 SVEC OLDMONS0570357 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: March 2016 November 2013 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass A Opposition over Use of GMO Seeds in Nepal Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Medium Since 2011, protests against the controversial entry of Monsanto into Nepal's seed industry have been ongoing. Local civil society organizations, NGOs, and farmer groups have demanded that the government ban imports of the company's genetically modified (GM) seeds into the country. Activists claimed that the inflow of the GM seeds would drive local varieties into extinction, which would in turn lead to the company's monopoly in Nepal's seed market. In December 2013, an environmental advocate filed a writ petition at Nepal's Supreme Court to prohibit the imports. The petition argued several points including: the produce from GM seeds have potential negative health effects on people and animals; introduction of GM variety of crops may wipe out local crops; the use of GM seeds would only increase local farmers' dependence on foreign companies for seeds due to the one-time-use patents of such seeds. The petition named the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Department of Agriculture, Nepal Agriculture Research Council, Food Technology and Quality Control Department, Seeds Quality Control Center as defendants. As of January 2014, the Supreme Court had issued an interim order on the importation to the country's government to temporarily prohibit the importation of Monsanto's GM seeds.The company appealed the ruling in February 2014. Company Response: Denied allegations. Source: 2014/2/15_EKantipur.com; 2014/l/26_The Himalayan Times; 2014/l/8_Ekantipur; 2014_Aljaz eera: 2013/12/29_Republica; 2013/12/20_Republica; 2011/12/13_My Republica; 2011/ll/12_My Repu blica Minor Cases: Last Reviewed Score Status August 2016 8 Ongoing Headline Nigeria: Opposition to Permit Approvals for Commercial Release of GM Cotton and Field Trial of GM Maize Source 04 Aug 2016_AFRICA NEWS; 29 Jun 2016_AFRICA NEWS; 13 Jun 2016_AFRICA NEWS Toxic Emissions & Waste # of Cases: Very Severe 0 Severe Moderate Minor 0 2 5 Flag Score* 0 5 Type NonStructural Assessment Moderate For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 9 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 9 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570358 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Moderate Cases: Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: September 2016 March 2015 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass A San Diego City Lawsuit: Alleged Liability for San Diego Bay PCB Contamination Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Medium Monsanto along with two chemical manufacturers have been named defendants in a lawsuit filed by the City of San Diego and the San Diego Unified Port District for alleged contamination of the San Diego Bay. The plaintiffs claimed that the companies were liable for the release of polychlorinated biphenyls PCB) into the bay. The complainants also accused Monsanto of continuing to manufacture and market PCBs despite having the knowledge that it was hazardous to the environment. The lawsuit included the request for a jury trial, punitive damages, compensation for cleanup as well as damages for San Diego's purported natural resource utility decrease. UPDATES: 12 Sep 2016: SAN DIEGO FIGHTS BROAD INTERPRETATION OF COURT'S RULING IN PCB RUNOFF CASE. (SUPERFUND REPORT) 25 Apr 2016: JUDGES REJECT CONSOLIDATION OF WEST COAST CITIES' PCB TORT CASES. {SUPERFUND REPORT) 28 Mar 2016: MONSANTO ARGUES WEST COAST PCB CASES TOO DIFFERENT FOR CONSOLIDATION. (SUPERFUND REPORT) 03 Feb 2016: CITIES SEEK MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FOR NOVEL PCB SUITS AGAINST MONSANTO. (ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ALERT) 17 Mar 2015: San Diego sues Monsanto over PCB pollution. (ST. LOUIS BUSINESS JOURNAL) Company Response: Denied allegations. Mar 2015: Monsanto stated that the plaintiffs' allegations have already been put under review. The company denied responsibility for the costs of the alleged contamination. The company stressed that it only sold a lawful and useful product at the time which was utilized by third parties including the named. According to Monsanto, if their products' disposal and improper use allowed for necessary cleanup costs then the third parties should bear responsibility for the costs Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: April 2016 January 2016 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass Source: 12 Sep 2016_SUPERFUND REPORT Seattle City Lawsuit: Alleged Contamination of Local Water Sources with PCB Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact; Extensive Nature of Harm: Medium Monsanto and three of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in a lawsuit filed by the City of Seattle for allegedly contaminating the city's drainage system and the Duwamish River with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). According to the plaintiff, PCB contamination was detected in 20,000 acres that drain to the Lower Duwamish, a federal Superfund site, and in areas that drain to the East Waterway adjacent to Harbor Island, a separate federal Superfund site. UPDATES: For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 10 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 10 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570359 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY A 25 Apr 2016: JUDGES REJECT CONSOLIDATION OF WEST COAST CITIES' PCB TORT CASES. (SUPERFUND REPORT) 28 Mar 2016: MONSANTO ARGUES WEST COAST PCB CASES TOO DIFFERENT FOR CONSOLIDATION. (SUPERFUND REPORT) 03 Feb 2016: CITIES SEEK MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FOR NOVEL PCB SUITS AGAINST MONSANTO. (ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ALERT) 26 Jan 2016: City Sues to Hold Monsanto Accountable for Toxic PCBs. (TARGETED NEWSSERVICE) Source: 25 Apr 2016_SUPERFUND REPORT Minor Cases: Last Reviewed November 2016 August 2016 August 2016 August 2016 April 2016 Score Status 8 Ongoing 9 Concluded 9 Concluded 9 Concluded 8 Ongoing Headline Spokane City Lawsuit: Alleged Contamination of Local River with PCB Dismissal of Berkley City Lawsuit Over Alleged Contamination of Local Water Sources with PCB Dismissal of Oakland City Lawsuit Over Alleged Liability for San Francisco Bay PCB Contamination Dismissal of San Jose City Lawsuit Over Alleged Contamination of Guadalupe River and San Francisco Bay with PCBs Portland City Lawsuit: Alleged Contamination of Willamette River with PCB Source 01 Nov 2016_US OFFICIAL NEWS; 25 Apr 2016_SUPERFUND REPORT; 28 Mar 2016_SUPERFUND REPORT; 03 Feb 2016_ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ALERT; 04 Aug 2015_Reuters 23 Aug 2016_Reuters; 25 Apr 2016_SUPERFUND REPORT; 28 Mar 2015_SUPERFUND REPORT; 03 Feb 2016_ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ALERT; 07 Jan 2016_SANJOSE MERCURY NEWS (CALIFORNIA) 23 Aug 2016_Reuters; 25 Apr 2016_SUPERFUND REPORT 23 Aug 2016_Reuters; 25 Apr 2016_SUPERFUND REPORT 25 Apr 2016_SUPERFUND REPORT; 28 Mar 2016_SUPERFUND REPORT; 16 Mar 2016_EARTHFIX (OREGON) Environment Management The company's performance on the Environmental pillar is below median compared to its industry peers on the MSCI World Index. Environment Pillar Score: 4.0 Percentile: 20th To provide context for the company's controversy involvement, we reference here our evaluation of the company's capacity to manage its environmental challenges as assessed by MSCI ESG Research's ESG Ratings Analysis. This assessment focuses on strategy and governance, initiatives, and performance. For details on the company's environmental management performance, please refer to the MSCI ESG Ratings profile of the company. Management Metrics Sustainably managing natural resources and raw materials use: Reports carbon emissions to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP): Evidence of Using Alternative Water Sources: Environmental Management System (EMS) Has programs or taken actions to improve the energy efficiency of its operations: For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. N/A Yes Yes ISO 14001 or equivalent N/A PAGE 11 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 11 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570360 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Social A Controversies 1 CUSTOMERS CONTROVERSIES 1 Indicators Anticompetitive Practices Customer Relations Marketing & Advertising Other (Customers) Privacy & Data Security Product Safety & Quality Flag Score Assessment o 4 Moderate o 1 Severe o 8 Minor 1 Severe 10 No Controversies o 3 Moderate Anticompetitive Practices Very Severe Severe Moderate Minor # of Cases: 0 0 1 0 Flag Score* Type Assessment o 4 Structural Moderate Moderate Cases: Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: September 2016 May 2016 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Structural Ongoing Score:4 Pass India: Investigation Into Alleged Unfair Sublicensing Agreement Conditions for Bt Cotton Technology Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Medium Monsanto faced an investigation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) over allegations that it compelled Indian seed companies to accept unfair conditions of its sublicensing agreement for Bt cotton technology. Three seed companies filed complaints with the CCI, claiming that the company abused its dominant position in the Bt cotton market. UPDATES: 09 Sep 2016: Monsanto petition hearing on September 20. (Economic Times of India) 17 Jun 2016: CCI to probe three more new complaints against Monsanto. (THE ECONOMIC TIMES) 24 May 2016: After industry outcry, India puts GM seed order on hold. (HINDUSTAN TIMES) Source: 09 Sep 2016_Economic Times of India Customer Relations Very Severe Severe Moderate Minor # of Cases: 0 1 2 0 Flag Score* Type Assessment 1 Structural Severe For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 12 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 12 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570361 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Severe Cases: Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: May 2016 January 2003 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: Global Compact Compliance: Severe Structural Ongoing Score: 1 Pass A Brazilian Soy Farmers Royalty Lawsuit Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extremely Widespread Nature of Harm: Medium In 2008, approximately five million large and small Brazilian soybean producers launched legal action against Monsanto for the alleged illegal collection of royalties on seed harvests of its genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans. The complainants claimed that the company demanded royalties not only for the initial harvested crop using the patented seed but also for subsequent crop harvests. The soy farmers argued that using seeds from previous harvests has always been a traditional practice and should not warrant crop royalties. Since 2003, Monsanto has allegedly demanded from Brazilian soy producers an annual crop royalty equivalent to two-percent of revenue derived from annual harvests. UPDATES: 31 May 2016: 10-Q 2016. (Monsanto) Litigation on the alleged illegal royalty collection on Roundup Ready seed harvests was ongoing. 31 Aug 2014:10-K 2014. (Monsanto) Monsanto declared that it continued to face royalty-related legal actions in Brazil. The company stated that duration of patents for its Roundup Ready soybeans were under review in the country. Nov 2013: Monsanto continued to face the seed royalty lawsuit. The company might be liable for BRL 15 billion (USD 7.5 billion) if it were to lose the lawsuit. The Superior Tribunal of Justice, Brazil's second highest court, ruled that once a final decision was reached in the case filed in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, the decision could be applied across the country. Feb 2013: Monsanto offered a new contract to settle the lawsuit, but the offer was rejected by Brazilian soy farmers. The company told investors that it would defer royalty collection for first-generation Roundup Ready soybeans in Brazil until the matter was settled by the Brazilian court. Apr 2012: A court in Rio Grande do Sul ordered Monsanto to pay back at least USD 2 billion of the royalty payments it had collected. Monsanto subsequently appealed the ruling. Company Response: Acknowledged or settled controversy. Nov 2015: Monsanto declared in its latest quarterly report that it has meritorious legal arguments and will continue to represent its interests vigorously in these proceedings. Source: 31 May 2016_Monsanto 2016 10-Q; 2013/ll/30_Monsanto 10-Q report; 2012/6/13_Reuters; 2012/6/3_AFP For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 13 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 13 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570362 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Moderate Cases: Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: September 2016 February 2016 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass A CCI Investigation into Allegedly Unreasonable Royalties for GM Cotton Seeds in India Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Medium In February 2016, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) announced that it launched an investigation into the suspected abuse of dominant market position of Mahyco Monsanto, a joint venture between Monsanto and Mahyco. The probe was prompted by a complaint filed by India's Ministry of Agriculture, on behalf of local farmers and their organizations, of unreasonably high royalties charged by the company for its genetically modified (GM) cotton seeds. The company allegedly overpriced its products, utilizing its position as supplier of GM seeds used in more than 90 percent of cotton cultivation in India. UPDATES: 26 Sep 2016: Monsanto hits back at National Seed Association of India in row over seed patents. (Economic Times of India) 23 Sep 2016: Seed companies say Monsanto spreading falsehoods on patent rights. (THE ECONOMIC TIMES) 09 Sep 2016: Monsanto petition hearing on September 20. (Economic Times of India) 02 Sep 2016: Monsanto gets more time to file amended petition against CCI order. (THE ECONOMIC TIMES) 25 May 2016: Biotechnology firms upset with Bt Cotton royalty rates order. (THE ECONOMIC TIMES) 21 Apr 2016: HC allows T to fix trait value of BT seeds. (TIMES OF INDIA (ELECTRONIC EDITION)) 12 Apr 2016: Won't allow firms such as Monsanto to exploit farmers: Radha Mohan Singh, Agriculture Minister. (THE ECONOMIC TIMES) 10 Mar 2016: Royalties paid to Mosanto cut by 70 pc. (BUREAUCRACY TODAY) 04 Mar 2016: Monsanto threatens to exit India over GM royalty row. (The Times of India) 17 Feb 2016: Competition Commission of India suspects Monsanto abused dominant position. (The Times of India) Source: 26 Sep 2016_Economic Times of India Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: June 2016 February 2016 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass Argentina: Complaint by Farmers over Royalties Allegedly Sought for Cultivation of Second Generation Seeds from Inacta Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact; Low Nature of Harm: Serious In February 2016, the Argentine Rural Society (SRA), a local organization representing medium to large scale farmers, filed a complaint against Monsanto before the Argentina's National Commission for the Defense of Competition. The SRA alleged that Monsanto abused its dominant position in the market by seeking compensation from farmers to plant second-generation seeds produced from its genetically modified (GM) soybean, Inacta. The SRA claimed that under local law farmers were only required to pay for the Monsanto technology at the initial purchase of the GM seeds. In response to the dispute, Monsanto announced that it would no longer launch future soybean technologies in Argentina. For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 14 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 14 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570363 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY A UPDATES: 23 Jun 2016: UPDATE 1-Argentina reaches agreement over inspection of Monsanto soy. (Reuters) 18 May 2016: SAM:Monsanto suspends Argentina soybean tech. (AAP NEWSFEED) 12 Feb 2016: Argentine farmers take Monsanto seed complaint to regulators. (Reuters) Source: 23 Jun 2016_Reuters Marketing & Advertising # of Cases: Very Severe 0 Severe Moderate Minor 0 0 1 Flag Score* 8 Type NonStructural Assessment Minor Minor Cases: Last Reviewed March 2016 Score Status 8 Ongoing Headline Purported Class Action over Alleged False Advertisement of Glyphosate-Containing Product Source 27 Aug 2015_CLASS ACTION REPORTER; OSJul 2015_CLASS ACTION REPORTER Other (Customers) Severe Cases: Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: March 2016 January 1997 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: Global Compact Compliance: Severe Structural Ongoing Score: 1 Pass Very Severe Severe Moderate Minor # of Cases: 0 1 0 0 Flag Score* Type Assessment 1 Structural Severe Patent Enforcement Practices Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extremely Widespread Nature of Harm: Medium Monsanto is known for monitoring the use of its patented seeds and for taking a tough stand against farmers the company alleges have used the seeds illegally. The company has been criticized for its practice of hiring private investigators to monitor farmers. It has filed lawsuits against several farmers in the U.S. and Canada alleging patent infringement. As March 2016, the company continued to be involved in such litigation. In February 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments for a case against Monsanto filed by a 75-year old farmer who purchased Monsanto's soybeans and subsequently used the resulting seeds from his crop to plant more crops. Previously, lower courts had already ruled in favor of Monsanto. Separately, non-governmental organizations, Center for Food Safety and the Save Our Seeds campaign, released a study tracking Monsanto's 142 patent infringement suits filed against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses across approximately 27 states. The company clarified in a statement that it has filed lawsuits against farmers 145 times since 1997. For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 15 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 15 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570364 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Monsanto has stated that it aggressively enforces its seed patents in order to protect its intellectual property and to ensure that it is compensated for its research and development activities. Further, the company reports that it donates any profits from seed enforcement lawsuit penalties to charity. Monsanto's patent protection measures conflict with farmers' traditions of reusing seeds from a previous season's crops. Farmers who purchase seeds from Monsanto are required to sign a "Technology Use Agreement" and pay the company a fee based on acreage planted in addition to the cost of the seeds. The agreement gives the company a right to inspect the fields and take samples for three years after the seeds are purchased. The company has set up a controversial toll-free tip line for farmers to report on those who violate the agreement. In March 2011, a group of US organic agricultural organizations headed by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Manhattan, New York Court against the Monsanto to challenge its patents on genetically modified seeds. The plaintiffs launched the legal action preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they become contaminated by Monsanto's GM seeds. The district court dismissed the case in January 2012, ruling that the farmers lacked legal standing regarding the concerns over the potential contamination and consequential economic impact. The court also declared that the decision was made on grounds that the complainants were not yet contaminated despite recognizing that some contamination is "inevitable." The plaintiffs subsequently brought the lawsuit to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington which also dismissed the case in June 2013 on the same grounds. The June 2013 appeals court decision highlighted the fact that "Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land)."' In September 2013, the plaintiffs appealed to the US Supreme Court to get full protection from potential infringement. In January 2014, the Supreme Court refused to hear case. That ruling supports the appeals court's verdict and bars the reinstatement of the case. Company Response: Acknowledged or settled controversy. During a hearing in the Court of Appeals in Washington, Monsanto made, what was deemed binding by the court, legal assurances, that it wouldl not take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of its genetically engineered crops. Source: 23 Mar 2016_Monsanto Website; 31 Aug 2015_2015 10-K; 2013/02/22_Huffington Post;2014/ l/23_GMO Journal; 2014/1/14_OSGATA Press Release; 2011/3/29_OSGATA Press Release; 2014/1/1 3_RT.com; 2013/02/13_Huffington Post Product Safety & Quality Very Severe Severe Moderate Minor # of Cases: 0 0 5 0 Flag Score* Type Assessment 3 Structural Moderate For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 16 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 16 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570365 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Moderate Cases: Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: November 2016 September 2015 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Structural Ongoing Score:4 Pass A Roundup-related Injury Lawsuits Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Serious Extenuating Circumstance: Yes Monsanto faced personal injury lawsuits related to its Roundup product. Complainants alleged that the company was liable for their contraction of various illnesses due to exposure to Roundup. The influx of claims was triggered by the classification of glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, as a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. In October 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation approved the consolidation of lawsuits alleging that exposure to glyphosate caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma UPDATES: 16 Nov 2016: Monsanto Cancer Lawsuits Consolidated in Northern California. (NEWS RELEASE WIRE) 06 Oct 2016: Monsanto Trims But Can't Escape NY Roundup Cancer Suit. (Law360) 28 Sep 2016: MONSANTO CO: Faces Suits Over Cancer-Causing Herbicide Products. (CLASS ACTION REPORTER) 18 Aug 2016: MONSANTO COMPANY: Must Face Cancer Claims in Hawaii Case. (CLASS ACTION REPORTER) 04 Aug 2016: Plaintiffs File Motion to Consolidate Roundup Cancer Lawsuits Against Monsanto. (NEWS RELEASE WIRE) As of August 2016, 26 lawsuits were filed against the company, while Monsanto stated that it was aware of approximately 200 similar claims. 13 Jul 2016: United States Courts Opinions: United States District Court Eastern District of California: YOLANDA MENDOZA, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant.. (US OFFICIAL NEWS) 29 Jun 2016: MONSANTO: Faces Class Action Over Round Up Herbicide. (CLASS ACTION REPORTER) 17 May 2016: Monsanto slumps as its popular herbicide Round Up faces class action suit in the US. (THE ECONOMICTIMES) 10 Mar 2016: Monsanto Lawsuit Claims Roundup Caused Cancer in Cambria Farmer. (NEWS RELEASE WIRE) 04 Feb 2016: Former coffee farm owners sue Monsanto. (HAWAII TRIBUNE-HERALD) 28 Jan 2016: Americans With Herbicide-Linked Cancer File Lawsuit Against Monsanto in California. (RIA NOVOSTI) 24 Dec 2015: MONSANTO CO: Faces "Giglio" Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Damages. (CLASS ACTION REPORTER) 15 Oct 2015: U.S. lawsuits build against Monsanto over alleged Roundup cancer link. (REUTERS HEALTH MEDICAL NEWS) 29 Sep 2015: U.S. workers sue Monsanto claiming herbicide caused cancer. (REUTERS HEALTH MEDICAL NEWS) Source: 16 Nov 2016_NEWS RELEASE WIRE For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 17 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 17 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570366 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: September 2016 March 2015 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass WHO Agency Declares Glyphosate as "Probably Carcinogenic" to Humans impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extremely Widespread Nature of Harm: Minimal In March 2015, the World Health Organization's specialized cancer agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), released an assessment of five organophosphate pesticides. Among the agricultural chemicals evaluated was glyphosate, which Monsanto markets under the Roundup brand. The IARC classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic" to humans. According to the agency's study, for the herbicide, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Glyphosate also purportedly caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. The IARC cited studies of exposure to glyphosate in the U.S., Canada and Sweden since 2001. The lARC's findings have triggered the temporary ban of the chemical in certain parts of France and Colombia. Meanwhile, other food and substance safety agencies in certain nations like the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) have begun to conduct their own examination of glyphosate. The BfR found results opposite to the lARC's assessment but clarified that it has not conducted a complete review the WHO agency's report. In May 2016, the cancer assessment review committee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published online a preliminary report stating that glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. However, the EPA subsequently withdrew the report from the government website. The agency affirmed its assessment that glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic in September 2016. Separately, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a study that found that glyphosate was "unlikely" to be carcinogenic when ingested orally through food. UPDATES: 30 Sep 2016: No Swiss ban for weed-killer glyphosate. (Swissinfo) 16 Sep 2016: UPDATE 1-EPA says glyphosate, used in Monsanto herbicide, likely not carcinogenic. (Reuters) 28 Jun 2016: European Commission to extend glyphosate license for 18 months. (Reuters) 14 Jun 2016: Court Allows Center for Food Safety to Defend California from Monsanto Attack. (TARGETED NEWSSERVICE) 07 Jun 2016: US lawmakers question whether EPA staff influenced WHO glyphosate review. (Channel News Asia) 06 Jun 2016: Recall of Monsanto's Roundup likely as EU refuses limited use of glyphosate. (The Guardian) 01 Jun 2016: EU set to consider temporary extension of glyphosate licence over cancer row. (Reuters) 16 May 2016: Dietary exposure to glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer, U.N. report says. (UPI) 13 May 2016: EPA faces second U.S. lawmakers investigation into glyphosate review. (Reuters) 12 May 2016: U.S. lawmakers put pressure on EPA over handling of glyphosate review. (Reuters) 03 May 2016: EPA takes offline report that says glyphosate not likely carcinogenic. (REUTERS HEALTH MEDICAL NEWS) 08 Apr 2016: French Government Moves to Ban Some Monsanto Glyphosate Weed Killers. (Environmental Working Group) 07 Mar 2016: EU to defer decision on safety of weed-killer ingredient - sources. (Reuters) For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 18 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 18 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570367 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY 02 Mar 2016: Center for Food Safety Moves to Defend California from Monsanto Attack. (TARGETED NEWSSERVICE) 02 Mar 2016: NGOs sue Monsanto over pesticide safety. (The Local (Austria)) 17 Feb 2016: Key evidence withheld as 'trade secret' in EU's controversial risk assessment of glyphosate. (The Corporate Europe Observatory) 21 Jan 2016: UPDATE 1-Monsanto sues to keep herbicide off California list of carcinogens. (Reuters) 13 Jan 2016: EU food safety watchdog hits back at scientists in glyphosate row. (Reuters) 07 Dec 2015: Scientists assembled for Monsanto say herbicide not carcinogenic, disputing WFIO report. (Reuters) 12 Nov 2015: EU watchdog approves new licence for controversial weedkiller; Herbicide approved for relicensing in EU, despite World Health Organisation assessment linking it to cancer in humans. (THE GUARDIAN) 12 Nov 2015: European scientists say weedkiller glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer. (Reuters) According to an independent study conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on glyphosate, it is unlikely that the substance is carcinogenic. The EFSA declared that it had conducted a thorough analysis of the substance and took into account the IRAC's findings. 21 Oct 2015: Monsanto pushes against California listing of herbicide as cancer cause. (YEREPOUNI DAILY NEWS) 22 Sep 2015: Herbicide scrutiny mounts as resistant weeds spread in U.S. (SAUDI PRESS AGENCY (SPA)) 10 Sep 2015: California Moves To Protect Citizens From Monsanto's GMO Weed Killer. (Environmental Working Group) California has expressed intentions to add glyphosate to the state's official list of known carcinogens. The state declared its plans to implement the policy through Proposition 65, a legislation that requires the registration and labeling of hazardous chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects as determined by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 20 Aug 2015: Scientists call for new review of herbicide, cite 'flawed1 U.S. regulations. (NEWS POINT) 19 Aug 2015: Bill banning Roundup yanked. (HAWAII TRIBUNE-HERALD) 07 Aug 2015: PESTICIDES: European retailers yank Roundup from shelves. (GREENWIRE) 15 Jul 2015: Weedkiller suspected of causing cancer deemed 'safe1; A multi-billion dollar weedkiller used in British farms, parks and gardens has been linked to cancer by the WHO, but its European license could still be reapproved. (THE GUARDIAN) In an independent study, the BfR found "very limited evidence of carcinogenicity" in mice exposed to glyphosate. The agency stated that the acceptable daily intake of the substance was between 0.3 to 0.5 mg per kilogram of body weight per day. BfR has also recommended the re-approval of glyphosate. 14 Jul 2015: Monsanto says panel to review WHO finding on cancer link to herbicide. (REUTERS HEALTH MEDICAL NEWS) 15 Jun 2015: France Bans 'Probably Carcinogenic' Monsanto Herbicide for Home Gardeners. (RIA Novosti ) ' 15 May 2015: Colombia gov't confirms suspension of aerial coca spraying. (Reuters) 29 Apr 2015: HERBICIDE: CAMPAIGNERS SEEK BAN ON GLYPHOSATE IN LATIN AMERICA. (IPS - INTER PRESS SERVICE) For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 19 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 19 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570368 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY A 24 Mar 2015: Monsanto seeks retraction for report linking herbicide to cancer. (REUTERS HEALTH MEDICAL NEWS) 20 Mar 2015: Monsanto Disagrees with IARC Classification for Glyphosate. (Monsanto website) 20 Mar 2015: Health Agency Says Widely Used Herbicide Likely Carcinogenic. (Wall Street Journal) 20 Mar 2015: IARC Monographs Volume 112: Evaluation of Five Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides. (World Health Organization - International Agency for Research on Cancer) Company Response: Denied allegations. Feb 2016: Monsanto maintains that glyphosate is a safe product. The company highlighted that comprehensive long-term toxicological studies repeated over the last 30 years have time and again demonstrated that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk in humans. The company further stressed that U.S. EPA classifies the substance in the lowest and most favorable category, E, indicating evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans. Mar 2015: Monsanto strongly disagreed with the lARC's findings. In an official statement, the company cited several reasons for opposing the glyphosate classification. According tong to the company, the studies used IARC as basis for their evaluation were old and have been previously reviewed by regulatory agencies. Monsanto also accused IARC of purposefully disregarding genetic toxicity studies purportedly supporting the conclusion that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. The company further stressed that the agency's findings were not supported by scientific data and does not establish a link between the herbicide and the increase in cancer. Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: April 2016 April 2016 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass Source: 30 Sep 2016_Swissinfo GM Cotton Banned in Burkina Faso Due to Short Fiber Length Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Medium Burkina Faso announced that it would phase out Monsanto's genetically modified cotton by 2018 because the length of cotton fibers it produced were too short. The national cotton farmers' union, along with three cotton companies, filed a XOF 48 billion (USD 82 million) compensation claim against Monsanto for lost harvest. Monsanto stated that it was engaged in discussions with cotton producers in Burkina Faso. UPDATES: 22 Apr 2016: Monsanto GM cotton banned by top African producer. (DAILY NEWS (BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY)) Source: 22 Apr 2016_DAILY NEWS (BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY) For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 20 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 20 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570369 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: March 2016 March 2016 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass V EPA Investigation into Human Health Effects of Herbicides Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Minimal In March 2016, the EPA's Office of Inspector General announced that it would launch an investigation into the spread of superweeds and the human health impacts of the herbicides used for weed control. Among the chemicals which will be examined is glyphosate, the active ingredient of Monsanto's Roundup, whose excessive use in farms allegedly triggered the emergence of superweeds, UPDATES: 28 Mar 2016: EPA Watchdog to Investigate Monsanto GMOs and Superweeds. (Environmental Working Group) Source: 28 Mar 2016_Environmental Working Group Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: March 2016 January 2007 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass Monsanto Guilty of Chemical Poisoning Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Low Nature of Harm: Serious In February 2012, a court in Lyon, France issued a guilty verdict against Monsanto for allegedly poisoning a French farmer. The plaintiff claimed that he had developed neurological problems after his exposure to the company's herbicide product, Lasso. The complainant also alleged that consumers were not fully informed of the dangers due to inadequate warnings on product labeling. Lasso had been banned in France since 2007. The company has declared that it will appeal the ruling UPDATES: 07 Mar 2016: no new information available. 10 Sep 2015: French court confirms Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning. (Reuters) A French court upheld the 2012 ruling on the chemical poisoning lawsuit against Monsanto. 11 Feb 2014: Charente "out of the question to stop" its fight against Monsanto. (Sudouest) As of January 2014, the appeal proceedings were ongoing. Company Response: Denied allegations. Aug 2015: The company's legal representative declared that Monsanto will launch an appeal to France's highest appeal court. Source: 10 Sep 2015_Reuters; 2012/2/13_Reuters; 2012/2/14_BBC News HUMAN RIGHTS & COMMUNITY CONTROVERSIES 1 Indicators Civil Liberties Human Rights Concerns Impact on Local Communities Other (Human Rights & Community) For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. Flag Score Assessment 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 1 Severe 0 10 No Controversies PAGE 21 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 21 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570370 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Impact on Local Communities A Very Severe Severe Moderate Minor # of Cases: 0 2 3 0 Flag Score* Type Assessment 1 Structural Severe Severe Cases: Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: April 2016 January 1940 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: Global Compact Compliance: Severe Structural Ongoing Score: 1 Watch List Lawsuits Concerning Agent Orange Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extremely Widespread Nature of Harm: Very Serious Monsanto has faced lawsuits in the U.S., Europe, Canada, South Korea, and Vietnam following widespread public health issues raised by war veterans and civilians who came in contact with the herbicide known as Agent Orange. U.S., South Korean, and Vietnamese veterans and their families have attributed various illnesses to the defoliant, including miscarriages, birth defects, cancers, and nervous disorders. Vietnam claims that about a million of its people suffer from Agent Orange-related illnesses. UPDATES: 25 Apr 2016: REPORT SHOWS STRONGER LINK BETWEEN AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE AND SOME DISEASES. (STATES NEWS SERVICE) A report by the Institute of Medicine noted that there could be "limited or suggestive evidence" linking Agent Orange exposure to hypothyroidism and bladder cancer. Nitro, West Virginia Lawsuit 07 Jul 2015: MONSANTO CO: Parties in "Allen" Case Perform on Settlement. (CLASS ACTION REPORTER) Jan 2013: The Putnam County Circuit Court approved Monsanto's proposed settlement. Subsequently, certain plaintiffs objected to the settlement and brought the case to the West Virginia Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the appeal in November 2013 in favor of Monsanto. Feb 2012: Monsanto proposed a settlement wherein it agreed to pay approximately USD 93 million in resolution of the allegations. The agreement stipulated a 30-year medical monitoring program consisting of approximately USD 21 million and an additional fund of approximately USD 63 million over the life of the program, and a three-year property remediation plan amounting to approximately USD 9 million. Dec 2004: 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit against Monsanto, (its former parent) Pharmacia, and seven other defendants alleging that the companies' production of Agent Orange in Nitro, West Virginia resulted in the release of dioxins at unsafe levels that contaminated the area. The complainants comprised of current and former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding the site. The plaintiffs also claimed that members of their community contracted illnesses and conditions including cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, endometriosis, infertility, and suppressed immune functions, due to exposure to dioxin pollution. The plaintiffs sought damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate value, funds for property contamination testing, funds for human exposure testing, and medical monitoring costs. Monsanto previously reached an agreement with the EPA to clean up the Nitro site in 1983 and again in 1985. However, in a 2000 report, the EPA stated that the nearby Kanawha River contained unsafe and illegal levels of dioxin. In 2002, state regulators discovered seepage of dioxin into the Kanawha River allegedly from a plant where Monsanto used to manufacture Agent Orange. The dioxin reportedly settled in the river and nearby surroundings. Claims by U.S. Veterans For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 22 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 22 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570371 10 Mar 2016: Researchers call for more study of Agent Orange's effects on Vietnam veterans and their kids. (The Virginia-Pilot) The committee of researchers established in 1991 to investigate the negative health effects of Agent Orange has declared that more than two decades of study has not produced a concrete understanding as to how the toxic herbicide has harmed Vietnam veterans and possibly their families. The committee declared that there are still significant gaps in their findings and that additional research is necessary. 08 Feb 2016: Veterans Affairs again denies Agent Orange benefits to Navy vets. (The Virginia-Pilot) The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has again rejected the efforts of Vietnam Navy veterans to claim compensation for possible exposure to Agent Orange. For over a decade, advocates for approximately 90,000 Blue Water Navy veterans who served off the coast of Vietnam have been requesting the VA to expand its benefits policy to include them. The veterans group claimed that they were exposed to Agent Orange because their ships harnessed potentially contaminated water and distilled it for drinking, cooking, bathing and laundry. Experts have reported that the distillation process could have actually concentrated the harmful substance. 18 Jun 2015: VA Expands Disability Benefits for Air Force Personnel Exposed to Contaminated C-123 Aircraft. (Department of Veteran Affairs) In light of the Institute of Medicine's January 2015 findings, the Department of Veterans Affairs implemented a new regulation in June 2015 that expanded the benefits eligibility for certain Air Force Veterans and Air Force Reserve personnel who were exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange during their service inside the contaminated C-123 aircraft. 09 Jan 2015: Post-Vietnam Dioxin Exposure in Agent Orange-Contaminated C-123 Aircraft. (Institute of Medicine) In January 2015, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report entitled "Post-Vietnam Dioxin Exposure in Agent Orange-Contaminated C-123 Aircraft." The report was based on an evaluation conducted by the IOM on the 1,500 to 2,100 Airforce Reserve personnel who trained and worked between 1972 and 1982 on the C-123 aircraft that had been used to spray herbicides, including Agent Orange (AO), during Operation Ranch Fland in the Vietnam War. The Department of Veteran Affairs requested the IOM to conduct the assessment to determine if the AF Reservists were exposed to herbicides at levels harmful to their health. The lOM's findings indicated the following: the presence of herbicide residues on the interior surfaces of the C-123 aircraft; herbicide residue levels based on internal surface samples fall in or above the cautionary range for adverse health outcomes as defined by international guidelines; AF reservists would have been exposed to the herbicides during their service inside the C-123; plausibility that reservists' chemicals exposure exceeded health guidelines which increases the likelihood of increased risks of adverse health outcomes. Vietnamese Veterans Lawsuit 08 Jan 2016: First argument session in Agent Orange lawsuit in France slated for March. (Vietnam Plus) The Crown Court of Evry scheduled in March 2016, the first argument session for the 2014 Agent Orange lawsuit launched by Tran To Nga. 15 Jun 2015: EXCLUSIVE: Agent Orange Victims to Sue U.S. Firms Again for Damages. (JIJI PRESS TICKER SERVICE) Advocacy group, Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVAO), declared that it will launch another lawsuit against 26 companies, including Monsanto to seek damages for negative health effects caused by defoliants used during the Vietnam War. The group stated that it had learned many lessons from their failed legal action which was launched in 2004. VAVAO declared that timing of the new lawsuit's filing has not been decided but a shortlist has been established for which courts they will initiate the litigation in. 15 Jun 2015: EXCLUSIVE: Agent Orange Victims to Sue U.S. Firms Again for Damages. (JIJI PRESS TICKER SERVICE) For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 23 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 23 of 38 SVEC OLDMONS0570372 Advocacy group, Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVAO), declared that it will launch another lawsuit against 26 companies, including Monsanto to seek damages for negative health effects caused by defoilants used during the Vietnam War. The group stated that it had learned many lessons from their failed legal action which was launched in 2004. VAVAO declared that timing of the new lawsuit's filing has not been decided but a shortlist has been established for which courts they will initiate the litigation in. 21 April 2015: Agent Orange trial launched by French-Vietnamese woman opens. (VAVA.org) In May 2014, French-Vietnamese, Tran To Nga filed a class action lawsuit in the Crown Court of Evry in France against 26 U.S. companies for producing the toxic substances sprayed by the U.S. armed forces during the war in Vietnam. Nga and her legal representatives claimed that the chemicals, and therefore their manufacturers, were responsible for the serious health issues inflicted on her, her family and Vietnamese communities. Mrs. Nga was purportedly exposed to Agent Orange during her service for the Liberation News Agency in the late 1960s. Working as a correspondent, she travelled to the most heavily dioxin-contaminated areas in southern Vietnam including Cu Chi, Ben Cat and along the Flo Chi Minh Trail. According to Mrs. Nga her first born died of heart defects and her second child suffered from a blood disease, which were purportedly caused by her earlier exposure to the harmful chemicals used during the war. In April 2015, the trial for her 2014 lawsuit was launched. Oct 2008: The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit to the US Supreme Court to request that it be reviewed again. The request was denied in February 2009. Nov 2004: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds of jurisdiction and the plaintiffs' failure to prove that the defendants violated international laws. In March 2005, the District Court dismissed VAVAO's lawsuit. The judged presiding over the case ruled that the use of the dioxins during the war, although they were toxic, did not fit the definition of "chemical warfare" and therefore did not violate international law. The court also declared that the chemical manufacturers as US government contractors had the same immunity as the US government from litigation. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed appeals to reinstate the case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Federal Court of Appeals in Manhattan. Both were denied Jan 2004: VAVAO filed a lawsuit in the District Court of the Eastern District of New York against Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Pharmacia and other chemical produces involved in the manufacturing of Agent Orange. By virtue of the Alien Tort Claims Act, the plaintiffs alleged that the companies that produced the toxic herbicides used in the Vietnam war were in "violation of international law and war crimes, and under the common law for products liability negligent and intentional torts, civil conspiracy, public nuisance and unjust enrichment, seeking many damages for personal injuries, wrongful death and birth defects and seeking injunctive relief for environmental contamination and disgorgement of profits." South Korea Court Rulings Jul 2013: The South Korea Supreme Court ordered Monsanto and Dow Chemical to compensate 39 Vietnam War veterans a total of approximately USD 415,000. The Court recognized the complainants contracted certain skin diseases such as chemical acne due to exposure to the toxic defoliants manufactured by the two companies. Dow Chemical contested the ruling and argued that the verdict was not supported by clear evidence. Jan 2006: A South Korean court ordered Monsanto and Dow Chemical to pay compensation to approximately 6,800 people, including South Korean Vietnam War veterans and their families, who allegedly suffered health problems due to Agent Orange exposure. Total compensation was estimated at USD 61 million. Three separate damages suits were filed against the two companies on behaif of approximately 20,000 South Koreans. Two were upheld by the court while one case was dismissed. Federal courts have ruled that Vietnam veterans who missed a 1994 deadline for seeking compensation for Agent Orange-related illnesses could sue Agent Orange manufacturers, including Monsanto, for damages. As part of a 1984 settlement the manufacturers agreed to pay into a USD 180 million compensation fund for Vietnam veteran victims in exchange for release from any future liability. Flowever, plaintiffs have alleged that those who discover illnesses after 1994 should be eligible for payments. For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 24 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 24 of 38 SVEC OLDMONS0570373 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Pending Lawsuit in Canada Sep 2007: A lawsuit filed by the Canadian government against Monsanto and Dow Chemical in April 2007 was pending. The lawsuit sought compensation for any injuries plaintiffs may have suffered as the result of the spraying of Agent Orange chemicals in 1967 and 1968 at Canadian Forces Bases. At an earlier time, individuals who lived near a base in New Brunswick filed a class action lawsuit against the Canadian government alleging that they suffered injuries from being exposed to various chemicals used for 30 years to control weeds at the base. Company Response: Denied allegations. Monsanto has actively defended itself from lawsuits concerning Agent Orange. The company declared that from 1965 to 1969, it was one of nine wartime government contractors who manufactured the chemical. The company also stated that government set the specifications for making Agent Orange and determined when, where, and how it was used. Monsanto stressed that Agent Orange was only produced for, and used by, the government. The company further highlighted that U.S. courts have determined that wartime contractors, including itself, that produced the dioxins for the government are not responsible for damage claims associated with the substance. Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: January 2016 June 2013 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: Global Compact Compliance: Severe Non-Structural Ongoing Score:2 Pass Source: 25 Apr 2016_STATES NEWS SERVICE; 2013/ll/30_Monsanto 10-Q Report; 2013/8/31_Monsan to 2013 10-K; 2013/l/25_Bloomberg Businessweek; 2013/2/l/_lndiana Public Media; 2012/2/2_lndian a Public Media; 2012/2/l_NPR; 2Q13/l/29_lnsurance Journal; 2013/7/12_Fox News; US Department of Justice Department Court Documents 2004-2009; Agent Orange Record; 2012/l/2_Chemical Week; 201 l/08/10_Thai News Service Protests Against Cordoba Plant Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extremely Widespread Nature of Harm: Medium Monsanto has faced opposition from residents of Malvinas Argentinas in Cordoba, Argentina over its proposed construction of a treatment plant for genetically modified (GM) corn in the area. The project involves the construction of over 200 silos and the use of agrochemical substances for the containment and treatment of GM maize seeds. Locals and activist groups lead by the Malvinas Lucha por la Vida (Malvinas Lucha por la Vida (Malvinas Assembly Fighting for Life), since June 2013, have conducted protests and raised concerns regarding the negative health impacts that may result from the potential release of chemicals from the facility. UPDATES: 20 Jan 2016: Argentine Social Movements Strike Back Against Monsanto. (teleSUR) in December 2015, a local court in Malvinas Argentinas released an order requiring activists, for 24 hours, to give free passage to company personnel and machinery at the construction site of Monsanto's GMO treatment plant. The order was immediately opposed by advocacy groups. Numerous NGOs called for their members to assemble at the encampment to reinforce the blockade. The groups further made a public announcement, declaring a state of "permanent alert" at the site. NGOs also launched protests in cities around Argentina in January 2016 to stress their opposition to the GMO treatment plant. 06 Mar 2015: Argentina takes a stand against Monsanto. (La Opinion) Despite the termination of construction at Monsanto's Argentina facility, the protesters' encampment was still in place. The Malvinas Assembly and other organizations declared that they will sustain their efforts and oppose Monsanto should it attempt to pursue the development of the plant. For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 25 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 25 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570374 Apr 2014: The blockade at Monsanto's Argentina facility was still in place and demonstrations were ongoing. The Malvinas Assembly and other organizations declared that they will sustain their efforts until the project was completely shut down. Feb 2014: The government of Cordoba rejected Monsanto's ElAfor failing to identify the relevant impacts and resulting mitigation measures of its treatment plant. The company subsequently appealed to the Environment Secretariat as well as the Ministry of Water, Environment and Energy but was denied approval by both. Jan 2014: A Malvinas Argentias court ruled in favor of the locals. The legal body ordered Monsanto to halt construction at Cordoba plant and prohibited the municipality from authorizing activities connected to the project until the company accomplishes the environmental impact assessment and undergoes public hearing or local referendum. Jun 2013: Malvinas Argentinas residents launched a protest against Monsanto's proposed Cordoba-based treatment plant for genetically modified maize seeds. The demonstration followed the company's announcement that the first stage of construction would be complete by the end of 2013 and the plant would start operating by April 2014. The protesters stressed the potential negative health effects that may result from the plant's operation byproducts. Locals declared that the facility poses another health risk on top of the already prevalent respiratory illnesses and birth defects in the area, which they alleged were associated with exposure to Monsantos's product, Roundup, used for the cultivation of soy in Cordoba. Dec 2013: Monsanto sought the assistance of local authorities to disperse the demonstrators. The company reported that masked protesters armed with sticks and stones attacked workers who tried to enter the facility. A violent confrontation ensued as riot police deployed at the site used rubber bullets and tear gas on the protesters Approximately eight were injured from the clash Nov 2013: Members of the Argentine Construction Union attacked the protest camp in Cordoba. The workers complained that the demonstration cut them off from their livelihood Approximately 20 injuries resulted from the incident. Oct 2013: Operations at the site were halted when demonstrators disrupted the entry of supplies. Sep 2013: protesters set up a blockade in front of Monsanto's Cordoba plant. Subsequently, locals with the support of advocacy groups filed an injunction in a provincial court in Malvinas Argentinas against the company demanding the suspension of construction until the environmental impact study for the project was completed. Company Response: Denied allegations. Jan 2014: Monsanto declared that it will appeal the ruling imposed against its Malvinas Argentinas project. As regards the rejection of its EIA, the company declared that it accepts the findings and would move to bring the project in line with the new requirements. Source: 20 Jan 2016_teleSUR; 06 Mar 2015_La Opinion; 2014/4/24_La Manana de Cordoba; 2014/4/ 5_Revolution News; 2014/3/26_The Argentina Independent; 2014/2/ll_The Wall Street Journal; 2014/ l/25_IPS-lnter Press Service; 2014/1/9_RT; 2013/ll/28_The Associated Press; 2013/12/2_IPS-lnter Pres s Service; 2013/09/30_Cadena 3; 2013/09/30Jnfocampo; 2013/07/19_La Mana de Cordoba; 2013/06/ 27_La Manana de Cordoba; 20120831_organicbuenosaires.com For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 26 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 26 of 38 SVEC OLDMONS0570375 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Moderate Cases: Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: September 2016 January 1930 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass A Personal Injury Claims Related to PCBs Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Serious Extenuating Circumstance: Yes Monsanto, its former parent Pharmacia LLC, and the latter's former subsidiary, Solutia Inc. have been involved in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed on behalf of approximately 750 individuals in state courts in St. Louis, Missouri and Los Angeles, California. The plaintiffs claimed to have developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma due to exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) manufactured by Monsanto from the 1930's to 1970's. The complainants claimed that the company's production of PCBs for decades resulted in high levels of air and water PCB contamination in areas surrounding the facilities that manufactured the chemical. Monsanto stopped manufacturing PCBs in 1977. As declared under Monsanto's indemnity agreements with Pharmacia (now a Pfizer subsidiary) in 2000 and Solutia (now an Eastman Chemical subsidiary) in 2008, it has assumed the defense of the personal injury claims. UPDATES: 29 Sep 2016: Dangerous Monsanto Chemical Remains in Thousands of Schools. (Environmental Working Group) 15 Aug 2016: United States Courts Opinions: United States District Court Eastern District of Massachusetts: TOWN OF PRINCETON, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, SOLUTIA INC., and PHARMACIA CORPORATION, Defendants.. (US OFFICIAL NEWS) 20 Jul 2016: United States Courts Opinions: United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri: Case: 4:16-cv-00536-PLC. (US OFFICIAL NEWS) 26 May 2016: Jury reaches $46 million verdict against Monsanto over PCBs. (ASSOCIATED PRESS FINANCIAL WIRE) 05 Apr 2016: Company cleared after accusations of causing disease from PCB exposure. (CITY NEWS SERVICE) 01 Apr 2016: United States Courts Opinions: United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri: Case: 4:15-cv-00844-AGF. (US OFFICIAL NEWS) [accessed on Mar 7 2016]: Newsroom. (Monsanto website) 09 Dec 2015: MONSANTO: School Board File Suit Over PCB Cleanup. (CLASS ACTION REPORTER) A St. Louis school joined the mounting claims against Monsanto for alleged PCB contamination. 02 Jul 2015: Plaintiffs' attorneys ask for up to $70M in PCBs case. (MISSOURI LAWYERS MEDIA) 05 Jun 2015: Residents from 7 states allege Monsanto chemical led to cancer. (ST. LOUIS BUSINESS JOURNAL) 02 Jul 2015: MONSANTO CO: Two Mass. Towns Lose in 1st Round of PCB Litigation. (CLASS ACTION REPORTER) 31 May 2015: 10-Q 2015. (Monsanto) Company Response: Other. For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 27 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 27 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570376 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY A May 2015: Monsanto declared that it remains engaged in efforts to resolve the injury claims. Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: August 2016 June 2016 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: July 2016 July 2016 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass Source: 29 Sep 2016_Environmental Working Group; 2013/ll/30_Monsanto 10-Q Report; 2013/07/0 l_St. Clair County Circuit Clerk Roundup Ready 2 Xtend: Alleged Damage to Soybean Farms Due to Dicamba Use Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Medium Approximately 125 farmers in Missouri and Arkansas filed complaints with the respective state agriculture departments over damage to soybean crops allegedly due to the use of dicamba herbicides, including Monsanto's Roundup Ready 2 Xtend. Farmers claimed that dicamba sprayed in neighboring farms to control pigweed resulted in damage to their soybean fields. They further claimed that Monsanto marketed dicamba-resistant Roundup Xtend beans, even as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had not yet approved the use of the associated herbicide. UPDATES: 31 Aug 2016: Suspected illegal herbicide use takes toll on southeast Missouri farmers. (FARM FORUM (ABERDEEN, SOUTH DAKOTA)) 18 Aug 2016: Illegal Herbicide Use on Monsanto GMOs Spurs Bitter Complaints. (Environmental Working Group) 01 Aug 2016: Crime In The Fields: How Monsanto And Scofflaw Farmers Hurt Soybeans In Arkansas. (EARTHFIX (OREGON)) 26 Jul 2016: Monsanto draws state heat over drift. (ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE (LITTLE ROCK)) 22 Jul 2016: Panel: Farmers can use soybean Still, weedkiller risks other crops. (ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE (LITTLE ROCK)) Source: 31 Aug 2016_FARM FORUM (ABERDEEN, SOUTH DAKOTA) Mexico: Alleged Irregularities in Indigenous Community Consultation on Planting GM Soybeans in Campeche State Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Medium Extenuating Circumstance: Yes Exacerbating Circumstance: Yes Local NGOs representing 31 indigenous Maya communities in Mexico's Campeche state filed a complaint about the consultation process conducted by local authorities related to the planting of Monsanto's genetically modified soybeans in the towns of Hopelchen and Tenabo. The NGOs noted that the process was hampered by the lack of access by community members to the consultation venue, as well as intimidation by supporters of the product. They also called for the enforcement of a ban on planting GM soybeans, which the communities claimed was being cultivated in the Vicente Guerrero Iturbide community. UPDATES: For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 28 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 28 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570377 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY 19 Jul 2016: Mexico: Mision de Observacion denuncia abusos en consulta previa sobre siembra de soya transgenica de Monsanto; senala injerencia de empresa. (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (Main)) 19 Jun 2016: Mexico: Authorities suspend Monsanto's permit to sow modified soybean in Yucatan. (EL FINANCIERO) Source: 19 Jul 2016_Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (Main) LABOR RIGHTS & SUPPLY CHAIN CONTROVERSIES 10 Indicators Child Labor Collective Bargaining & Union Discrimination & Workforce Diversity Health & Safety Labor Management Relations Other (Labor Rights & Supply Chain) Supply Chain Labor Standards Flag Score Assessment 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies Social Management The company's performance on the Social pillar is below median compared to its industry peers on the MSCI World Index. Social Pillar Score: Percentile: 10th To provide context for the company's controversy involvement, we reference here our evaluation of the company's capacity to manage its social challenges as assessed by MSCI ESG Research's ESG Ratings Analysis. This assessment focuses on strategy and governance, initiatives, and performance. For details on the company's social management performance, please refer to the MSCI ESG Ratings profile of the company. Management Metrics Company has policy to address sourcing of controversial raw materials: N/A Health & Safety policy is group wide: Yes CSR/Sustainability Committee/H&S task force or risk officer is responsible for Health & Safety strategy: Yes Percentage of total (not just domestic) workforce covered by collective agreements: N/A Code of Conduct covers the following: Child Labor: N/A Working Hours: N/A Anti-Discrimination: N/A Health & Safety: N/A Certifies own operations with a widely accepted product safety/quality standard (e.g.HACCP; ISO 9001; ISO/TS N/A 16949; ISO 13485): For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 29 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 29 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570378 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Governance A Controversies 3 GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSIES 3 Indicators Bribery & Fraud Controversial Investments Governance Structures Other (Governance) Flag Score Assessment o 3 Moderate 10 No Controversies 8 Minor 10 No Controversies Bribery & Fraud Moderate Cases: Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: August 2016 August 2016 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Structural Ongoing Score:4 Pass Very Severe Severe Moderate Minor # of Cases: 0 0 4 0 Flag Score* Type Assessment 3 Structural Moderate India: Withdrawal of Application for Introduction of Bollgard II Roundup Ready Flex Technology impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Minimal In August 2016, Monsanto withdrew its application to introduce a new technology on genetically modified (GM) cotton seeds, named Bollgard II Roundup Ready Flex, in protest of government regulations affecting GM crops. A government body had issued a proposal that would have compelled Monsanto to share its technology with local seed companies. After a protest by Monsanto and other international seed companies, the government body withdrew the proposal. Subsequently, Monsanto formed an alliance with other international seed companies to address concerns over increased government regulation over the GM seed and food crop industry. UPDATES: 28 Aug 2016: Global seed giants join hands against the govt's proposed regulatory mechanism. (THE TIMES OF INDIA (TOI)) 25 Aug 2016: UPDATE 2-GM mustard clears hurdle in India but more remain. (Reuters) 24 Aug 2016: Exclusive: Monsanto pulls new GM cotton seed from India in protest. (Reuters) Source: 28 Aug 2016_THE TIMES OF INDIA (TOI) For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 30 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 30 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570379 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: June 2016 November 2014 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Non-Structural Ongoing Score:5 Pass A Monsanto Challenges Moratorium on Cultivation of GMO Crops in Maui Hawaii impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Minimal In November 2014, a moratorium on the planting and cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in Maui County in Hawaii was approved through local referendum. GM manufacturers Monsanto and Dow Chemical opposed the ordinance and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the local government to challenge the decision, in June 2015, a Maui District Court judge struck down the GMO ban. Subsequently, three counties in Hawaii appealed the ruling, UPDATES: 15 Jun 2016: Rules on GMO crops in Hawaii heads to US appeals court. (ASSOCIATED PRESS FINANCIAL WIRE) 01 Jul 2015: BIOTECH: Judge tosses Maui's GMO ban. (GREENWIRE) A district court judge nullified Maui County's ban on GMO cultivation, saying that the county does not have authority to enforce such an ordinance. Representatives from the local government declared that the county will abide by the ruling. Meanwhile, members of anti-GMO advocacy groups have declared the intention to appeal the court's decision. 16 Jun 2015: Maui GMO case judge focuses on county authority to regulate. (ASSOCIATED PRESS FINANCIAL WIRE) 10 Mar 2015: Federal judge considers delaying Maui GMO ban hearings. (ASSOCIATED PRESS FINANCIAL WIRE) 16 Dec 2014: Maui group wins ability to intervene in GMO case. (Associated Press State & Local) 18 Nov 2014: Washington: Monsanto, Dow Chemical File Lawsuit to Destroy Maui County's GMO Ban. (US Official News) Company Response: Other. Nov 2014: Monsanto declared in a statement that it will challenge the legality of the moratorium and request the termination of its enforcement. Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: February 2016 January 2009 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Structural Concluded Score:5 Pass Source: 15 Jun 2016_ASSOCIATED PRESS FINANCIAL WIRE USD SO Million Penalty Over Accounting Violations Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Medium In February 2016, Monsanto agreed to pay USD 80 million to resolve allegations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it misstated its financial results over a three-year period and did not comply with accounting rules in relation to its Roundup product. According to the SEC investigation, Monsanto had inadequate internal accounting controls to account for rebates issued to distributors and retailers of Roundup. As such, the company failed to recognize the costs of the sales incentive program when it recorded revenues attributed to Roundup. As part of the settlement, the company also agreed to retain an independent consultant, while three executives also agreed to pay penalties. UPDATES: For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 31 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 31 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570380 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY 09 Feb 2016: Monsanto Paying $80 Million Penalty for Accounting Violations. (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) Source: 09 Feb 2016_SEC News Release Last Reviewed: Date Initiated: February 2016 January 2009 Assessment: Type: Status: Flag: 0 Global Compact Compliance: Moderate Structural Concluded Score:5 Pass USD SO Million Settlement over Alleged Accounting Violations Related to Roundup Rebates Impact & Basis of Assessment Scale of Impact: Extensive Nature of Harm: Medium In February 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission {SEC) announced that Monsanto agreed to pay USD 80 million in penalties to settle charges of its alleged violation of accounting rules and misstatement of its earnings for its product, Roundup. An SEC investigation revealed that the company had insufficient internal controls to account for millions of dollars in rebates it offered to Roundup distributors and retailers The rebates were a component of a promotion Monsanto implemented after the sales of a generic version of its product undercut its business in 2009. According to the agency, Monsanto booked substantial revenue from the scheme from 2009 to 2011 but failed to recognize the accompanying costs, which resulted in its misstatement of consolidated earnings over a three-year period. UPDATES: 09 Feb 2016: Monsanto Paying $80 Million Penalty for Accounting Violations. (US Securities and Exchange Commission) Company Response: Acknowledged or settled controversy. Feb 2016: Monsanto declared in a statement that it neither denies nor admits to any wrongdoing. The company said that it has agreed to commission a consultant to review its financial reporting of rebate programs. The company also highlighted that it had already restated its earnings from 2009 to 2011 at the end of fiscal year 2011. Source: 09 Feb 2016_US Securities and Exchange Commission Governance Structures # of Cases: Very Severe 0 Severe Moderate Minor 0 0 1 Flag Score* O 8 Type NonStructural Assessment Minor Minor Cases: Last Reviewed Score Status Headline August 2016 8 Ongoing Director William U. Parfet Faced Sexual Harassment Allegations Source 09 Aug 2016_KALAMAZOO GAZETTE (MICHIGAN) For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 32 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 32 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570381 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY Governance Management The company's performance on the Governance pillar is below median compared to its industry peers on the MSCI World Index. Governance Pillar Score: Percentile: 16th To provide context for the company's controversy involvement, we reference here our evaluation of the company's capacity to manage its governance challenges as assessed by MSCI ESG Research's ESG Ratings Analysis. This assessment focuses on strategy and governance, initiatives, and performance. For details on the company's governance management performance, please refer to the MSCI ESG Ratings profile of the company. Management Metrics Employee training on ethical standards: N/A Bribery and Corruption Policies: N/A For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 33 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 33 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570382 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Environment Biodiversity & Land Use Energy & Climate Change Operational Waste (Non-Hazardous) Other (Environment) Supply Chain Management Toxic Emissions & Waste Water Stress Social Customers Anticompetitive Practices Customer Relations Marketing & Advertising Other (Customers) Privacy & Data Security Product Safety & Quality Human Rights & Community Civil Liberties Human Rights Concerns impact on Local Communities Other (Human Rights & Community) Labor Rights St Supply Chain Child Labor Collective Bargaining & Union Discrimination & Workforce Diversity Health & Safety Labor Management Relations Other (Labor Rights & Supply Chain) Supply Chain Labor Standards Governance Bribery & Fraud Controversial Investments Governance Structures Other (Governance) For symbols and terms used in this report, refer to the "Glossary of Symbols and Terms" section. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. V Flag Score Assessment Q 0 O 0 Very Severe O 10 No Controversies O 10 No Controversies O 10 No Controversies O 10 No Controversies 0 5 Moderate 0 10 No Controversies 01 01 o 4 Moderate 0 1 Severe 0 8 Minor 0 1 Severe 0 10 No Controversies o 3 Moderate 01 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 1 Severe 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies 0 10 No Controversies o3 o 3 Moderate 0 10 No Controversies 0 8 Minor 0 10 No Controversies PAGE 34 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 34 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570383 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS & TERMS The following are short definitions of some of the symbols and terms used in this report. Please refer to the methodology document for more information. INDICATOR LEVEL SCORE: When there are three or more non-Minor assessed controversies, indicating a pattern, the Indicator Score is 1 point lower than the lowest assessed controversy case. If the lowest scored controversy case is 1, no additional points are deducted from the Indicator Score. LAST UPDATE: Available on Page 1, LAST UPDATE indicates the date a substantive update was made to the company report, either to one or multiple controversy cases. MSCI ESG Research monitors the news on a regular basis (See MEDIA REVIEW PROCESS), but the date is updated on the report only when changes are made to the data. MEDIA REVIEW PROCESS: MSCI ESG Research reviews major global news publications daily for significant controversies that concern companies in the MSCI coverage universe. In addition, on a weekly basis MSCI ESG Research reviews important regional news publications. Finally on a monthly basis, the MSCI ESG Research team reviews an additional set of important local and other general news publications, business news sources, and industry and trade periodicals, and other publications that have been identified as important sources of ESG performance information. Updates to company reports are prioritized by company size and the assessment level of existing controversies. LAST REVIEWED: Available for each controversy case, the LAST REVIEWED date is the date of the most recent information related to the controversy. OVERALL PERFORMANCE: SCORE AND FLAG: Each company receives an overall score and flag based on our assessment of performance across the three pillars (E, S, and G), with the score driven by the lowest scoring indicator. Flag Score Description G0 RED: Indicates that a company has been involved in one or more recent very severe controversies O1 ORANGE: Indicates that a company has been involved in one or more recent severe structural controversies that are ongoing 2 o3 4 5 G7 8 10 YELLOW: Indicates that the company has been involved in recent moderate-to-severe level controversies GREEN: Indicates that the company is not involved in major recent controversies MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 35 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 35 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570384 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY GLOBAL COMPACT COMPLIANCE SIGNALS: Fail Watch List A Fail signal indicates that the company is implicated in one or more very severe controversy cases for the issues covered under the United Nations Global Compact framework. The Fail signal maybe applied to cases that are either ongoing or concluded within the last three years. A Watch List signal indicates that the company is implicated in one or more severe ongoing controversy cases for the issues covered under the United Nations Global Compact framework. The controversy in question is systemic in nature. Concluded cases are not eligible for the Watch List signal. Pass A Pass signal indicates that the company has not been implicated (within the last three years) in any controversy case constituting a breach or near-breach of the United Nations Global Compact framework. Any company not receiving a Fail or Watch List signal receives a Pass signal. Disclaimer: The United Nations Global Compact does not sponsor; endorse, review or otherwise express any opinion regarding MSCI ESG Research's products or services. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 36 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 36 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570385 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY CONTACT US esgclientservice (5) msci.com Americas +1,212.804.5299 Europe, Middle East & Africa +44.20.7618.2510 A Asia Pacific +612,9033.9339 NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This document and all of the information contained in it, including without limitation all text, data, graphs, charts (collectively, the "Information") is the property of MSCI Inc. or its subsidiaries (collectively, "MSCI"), or MSCI's licensors, direct or indirect suppliers or any third party involved in making or compiling any Information (collectively, with MSCI, the "Information Providers") and is provided for informational purposes only. The Information may not be modified, reverse-engineered, reproduced or redisseminated in whole or in part without prior written permission from MSCI. The Information may not be used to create derivative works or to verify or correct other data or information. For example (but without limitation), the Information may not be used to create indexes, databases, risk models, analytics, software, or in connection with the issuing, offering, sponsoring, managing or marketing of any securities, portfolios, financial products or other investment vehicles utilizing or based on, linked to, tracking or otherwise derived from the Information or any other MSCI data, information, products or services. The user of the Information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of the Information. NONE OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDERS MAKES ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION (OR THE RESULTS TO BE OBTAINED BY THE USE THEREOF), AND TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EACH INFORMATION PROVIDER EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ORIGINALITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, NON INFRINGEMENT, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE) WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE INFORMATION. Without limiting any of the foregoing and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall any Information Provider have any liability regarding any of the Information for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, consequential (including lost profits) or any other damages even if notified of the possibility of such damages. The foregoing shall not exclude or limit any liability that may not by applicable law be excluded or limited, including without limitation (as applicable), any liability for death or personal injury to the extent that such injury results from the negligence or willful default of itself, its servants, agents or sub-contractors. Information containing any historical information, data or analysis should not be taken as an indication or guarantee of any future performance, analysis, forecast or prediction. Past performance does not guarantee future results. The Information should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. All Information is impersonal and not tailored to the needs of any person, entity or group of persons. None of the Information constitutes an offer to sell (ora solicitation of an offer to buy), any security, financial product or other investment vehicle or any trading strategy. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Exposure to an asset class or trading strategy or other category represented by an index is only available through third party investable instruments (if any) based on that index. MSCI does not issue, sponsor, endorse, market, offer, review or otherwise express any opinion regarding any fund, ETF, derivative or other security, investment, financial product or trading strategy that is based on, linked to or seeks to provide an investment return related to the performance of any MSCI index (collectively, "Index Linked Investments"). MSCI makes no assurance that any Index Linked Investments will accurately track index performance or provide positive investment returns. MSCI Inc. is not an investment adviser or fiduciary and MSCI makes no representation regarding the advisability of investing in any Index Linked Investments. Index returns do not represent the results of actual trading of investible assets/securities. MSCI maintains and calculates indices, but does not manage actual assets. Index returns do not reflect payment of any sales charges or fees an investor may pay to purchase the securities underlying the index or Index Linked Investments. The imposition of these fees and charges would cause the performance of an Index Linked Investment to be different than the MSCI index performance. The Information may contain backtested data. Back-tested performance is not actual performance, but is hypothetical. There are frequently material differences between backtested performance results and actual results subsequently achieved by any investment strategy. Constituents of MSCI equity indexes are listed companies, which are included in or excluded from the indexes according to the application of the relevant index methodologies. Accordingly, constituents in MSCI equity indexes may include MSCI Inc., clients of MSCI or suppliers to MSCI. Inclusion of a security within an MSCI index is not a recommendation by MSCI to buy, sell, or hold such security, nor is it considered to be investment advice. Data and information produced by various affiliates of MSCI Inc., including MSCI ESG Research Inc. and Barra LLC, may be used in calculating certain MSCI equity indexes. More information can be found in the relevant standard equity index methodologies on www.msci.com. MSCI receives compensation in connection with licensing its indices to third parties. MSCI Inc.'s revenue includes fees based on assets in investment products linked to MSCI equity indexes. Information can be found in MSCI's company filings on the Investor Relations section of www.msci.com. MSCI ESG Research Inc. is a Registered Investment Adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and a subsidiary of MSCI Inc. Except with respect to any applicable products or services from MSCI ESG Research, neither MSCI nor any of its products or services recommends, endorses, approves or otherwise expresses any opinion regarding any issuer, securities, financial products or instruments or trading strategies and neither MSCI nor any of its products or services is intended to constitute investment advice or a recommendation to make (or refrain from making) any kind of investment decision and may not be relied on as such. Issuers mentioned or included in any MSCI ESG Research materials may include MSCI Inc., clients of MSCI or suppliers to MSCI, and may also purchase research or other products or services from MSCI ESG Research. MSCI ESG Research materials, including materials utilized in any MSCI ESG Indexes or other products, have not been submitted to, nor received approval from, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or any other regulatory body. Any use of or access to products, services or information of MSCI requires a license from MSCI. MSCI, Barra, RiskMetrics, I PD, FEA, InvestorForce, and other MSCI brands and product names are the trademarks, service marks, or registered trademarks of MSCI or its subsidiaries in the United States and other jurisdictions. The Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) was developed by and is the exclusive property of MSCI and Standard & Poor's. "Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS)" is a service mark of MSCI and Standard & Poor's. ABOUT MSCI ESG RESEARCH MSCI ESG Research products and services are designed to provide in-depth research, ratings and analysis of environmental, social and governance-related business practices to companies worldwide. Ratings and data from MSCI ESG Research are also used in the construction of the MSCI ESG Indexes. MSCI ESG Research Inc. is a Registered Investment Adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 37 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 37 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570386 ESG Controversies MONSANTO COMPANY ABOUT MSCI MSCI Inc. is a leading provider of investment decision support tools to investors globally, including asset managers, banks, hedge funds and pension funds. MSCI products and services include indexes, portfolio risk and performance analytics, and ESG data and research. The company's flagship product offerings are: the MSCI indexes with approximately USD 8 trillion estimated to be benchmarked to them on a worldwide basis1; Barra multi-asset class factor models, portfolio risk and performance analytics; RiskMetrics multi-asset class market and credit risk analytics; IPD real estate information, indexes and analytics; MSCI ESG (environmental, social and governance) Research screening, analysis and ratings; and FEA valuation models and risk management software for the energy and commodities markets. MSCI is headquartered in New York, with research and commercial offices around the world. 1As ofSeptember 30, 2013, as reported on January 31, 2014 by eVestment, Upper and Bloomberg MSCI MSCI ESG RESEARCH INC. PAGE 38 OF 38 EX P-3586 Page 38 of 38 SVEC OL.DMONS0570387