CDP 2017 Climate Change 2017 Information Request CDP Conagra Brands Inc

Module: Introduction

Page: Introduction

CC0.1

Introduction Please give a general description and introduction to your organization.

Conagra Brands, Inc. (NYSE: CAG), headquartered in Chicago, is one of North America's leading branded food companies. Guided by an entrepreneurial spirit, Conagra Brands combines a rich heritage of making great food with a sharpened focus on innovation. The company's portfolio is evolving to satisfy people's changing food preferences. Conagra's iconic brands, such as Marie Callender's®, Reddi-wip®, Hunt's®, Healthy Choice®, Slim Jim® and Orville Redenbacher's®, as well as emerging brands, including Alexia®, Blake's® and Frontera®, offer choices for every occasion. With an ongoing commitment to corporate citizenship, Conagra Brands has been named to the Dow Jones Sustainability™ North America Index for six consecutive years. For more information, visit www.conagrabrands.com.

At Conagra Brands, corporate social responsibility is a natural extension of our purpose and operating principles. We have identified three strategic focus areas that reflect and articulate our values as a responsible corporate citizen: Good Food, Stronger Communities, Better Planet. Within each of these three areas, we focus on issues that are most material to our business and stakeholders and most meaningful to our role in the industry, the marketplace and our environment. We must continue to pursue sustainable business practices and develop innovative programs that align with our company goal.

Within the Better Planet focus, our commitment to protecting the environment is deeply rooted in our company values and comes alive through collaboration, imagination and having strong external awareness. We recognize that the company’s long-term success is measured far beyond financial metrics and includes social and environmental performance. Conagra set environmental performance goals for the first time in 2008. In 2013, the company announced a new sustainability vision for 2020 with focus areas remaining largely the same, but with updated, measurable objectives for the next several years. We’re working along two business strategies: first, striving to eliminate waste of all kinds – energy, water, and materials – to improve efficiency in our operations; second, ensuring we have long-term access to the resources required to make our products through sustainable sourcing programs. We are actively working to achieve these goals by 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% per pound of product produced. Reduce water use by 20% per pound of product produced. Reduce cumulative waste generation by 1 billion pounds in our facilities Continue our zero waste-to-landfill journey, while focusing on directing materials to the highest and best use Lead the industry in packaging for sustainable systems, with continuous improvement of design and understanding the role packaging plays in preventing food waste Encourage implementation of sustainable agriculture practices with our contracted farmers through implementation of a field-level, metrics-based program Participate in certified sustainable sourcing programs, where material to our business

CC0.2

Reporting Year Please state the start and end date of the year for which you are reporting data. The current reporting year is the latest/most recent 12-month period for which data is reported. Enter the dates of this year first. We request data for more than one reporting period for some emission accounting questions. Please provide data for the three years prior to the current reporting year if you have not provided this information before, or if this is the first time you have answered a CDP information request. (This does not apply if you have been offered and selected the option of answering the shorter questionnaire). If you are going to provide additional years of data, please give the dates of those reporting periods here. Work backwards from the most recent reporting year. Please enter dates in following format: day(DD)/month(MM)/year(YYYY) (i.e. 31/01/2001).

Enter Periods that will be disclosed

Mon 01 Jun 2015 - Tue 31 May 2016

CC0.3

Country list configuration

Please select the countries for which you will be supplying data. If you are responding to the Electric Utilities module, this selection will be carried forward to assist you in completing your response.

Select country

United States of America Select country

Canada Mexico

CC0.4

Currency selection

Please select the currency in which you would like to submit your response. All financial information contained in the response should be in this currency.

USD($)

CC0.6

Modules As part of the request for information on behalf of investors, companies in the electric utility sector, companies in the automobile and auto component manufacturing sector, companies in the oil and gas sector, companies in the information and communications technology sector (ICT) and companies in the food, beverage and tobacco sector (FBT) should complete supplementary questions in addition to the core questionnaire. If you are in these sector groupings, the corresponding sector modules will not appear among the options of question CC0.6 but will automatically appear in the ORS navigation bar when you save this page. If you want to query your classification, please email [email protected]. If you have not been presented with a sector module that you consider would be appropriate for your company to answer, please select the module below in CC0.6.

Further Information

Module: Management

Page: CC1. Governance

CC1.1 Where is the highest level of direct responsibility for climate change within your organization?

Board or individual/sub-set of the Board or other committee appointed by the Board

CC1.1a

Please identify the position of the individual or name of the committee with this responsibility

Name of the Board Committee Our Board of Directors maintains a Nominating, Governance & Public Affairs Committee that meets at least three times a year. All members of the Committee are independent directors and are appointed by the Board. The individual members are listed in our 2016 Proxy Statement, available online at: http://www.conagrabrands.com/sites/g/files/qyyrlu371/files/2016-11/2016-fiscal-proxy-report.PDF

Description of its Position in the Corporate Structure/Responsibilities One of the responsibilities of the Nominating, Governance & Public Affairs Committee is to periodically meet with management to review and advise on internal and external factors and relationships affecting the Company’s image and reputation (i.e., economic and government factors, investor relations, sustainable development considerations – including climate change – and community affairs). The Committee’s charter is publicly available at www.conagrabrands.com through the Corporate Governance Page under Investors and is available online: http://www.conagrabrands.com/investor-relations/corporate-governance/nominating-and-public-affairs. At least annually, the Committee will review the Company’s policies and programs related to corporate citizenship, social responsibility and public policy issues significant to the Company, such as sustainability and environmental responsibility and philanthropic and political activities and contributions.

Additional Citizenship/Climate Change Governance at Conagra Brands Day-to-day responsibility for Conagra Brands’ climate change program is managed by corporate Environment, Health and Safety, Engineering, Operations, and Research and Development. Individuals from these functions are responsible for tracking performance metrics and reporting results to management, developing both capital and non-capital reduction strategies and process improvements, and working with our manufacturing locations to implement GHG reduction strategies.

CC1.2

Do you provide incentives for the management of climate change issues, including the attainment of targets?

Yes

CC1.2a Please provide further details on the incentives provided for the management of climate change issues

Incentivized Who is entitled to benefit The type of performance from these incentives? incentives indicator Comment

Conagra Brands' Sustainable Development/Environmental Directors' performance evaluation Emissions Environment/Sustainability Monetary includes consideration for progress towards year-over-year business platform GHG emissions reduction target managers reward reduction target, as well as other sustainability objectives; performance rating affects merit

salary increase, bonus, and equity compensation awards. Conagra Brands' Energy Managers' performance evaluation includes consideration for progress Emissions Monetary towards year-over-year business platform GHG emissions reduction target, as well as other Energy managers reduction target reward sustainability objectives; performance rating affects merit salary increase, bonus, and equity

compensation awards. Conagra Brands' manufacturing Plant Managers' performance evaluation includes Emissions Monetary consideration for progress towards year-over-year business platform GHG emissions reduction Facility managers reduction target reward target, as well as other sustainability objectives; performance rating affects merit salary

increase, bonus, and equity compensation awards. Conagra Brands' business unit Vice President Operations' performance evaluation includes Emissions Monetary consideration for progress towards year-over-year business platform GHG emissions reduction Business unit managers reduction target reward target, as well as other sustainability objectives; performance rating affects merit salary

increase, bonus, and equity compensation awards. Emissions reduction project All employees are eligible to apply for Conagra Brands' annual Sustainable Development Energy reduction Awards program, which recognizes the most innovative sustainability projects of the year. The Monetary project All employees winning project team in the "Climate Change and Energy Efficiency" category earn $5,000 to reward Efficiency project contribute to an environmental non-profit of their choice and company recognition at an in- Behavior change person Sustainable Developments Awards conference. related indicator

Further Information

Page: CC2. Strategy

CC2.1 Please select the option that best describes your risk management procedures with regard to climate change risks and opportunities

Integrated into multi-disciplinary company wide risk management processes

CC2.1a

Please provide further details on your risk management procedures with regard to climate change risks and opportunities

How far into Frequency To whom are the future of results Geographical areas considered Comment are risks monitoring reported? considered?

Risks associated with climate change are evaluated globally as part of the Company’s Enterprise Risk Management program; if identified as one of the top ten business risks facing the Conagra Brands evaluates climate change business, it would be presented to the Board of Directors. In risks in all geographical areas where we 2016, no climate change related risk emerged as a top ten risk Senior operate production facilities; additional facing Conagra Brands' business. Therefore, results are reported Annually 3 to 6 years manager/officer geographies may be considered during to other business leaders directly impacted by the risks. Risks ingredient or raw material supply chain evaluated include multi-year financial projections of existing state sustainability assessments. cap and trade programs (California Assembly Bill 32 - Global Warming Solutions Act) and projected increases in commodity costs associated with certified sustainable sourcing of ingredients, such as palm oil.

CC2.1b

Please describe how your risk and opportunity identification processes are applied at both company and asset level

Company Level Climate change risks and opportunities at the company level are assessed by sustainability and environmental subject matter experts housed within Conagra's R&D, Environmental, Health and Safety, Procurement and Legal organizations. We also leverage involvement in several climate change and environmental organizations to identify macro-level risks and opportunities. Risks and opportunities are quantified using best information available, applying a variety of assumptions to establish the range of risk based on different scenarios. For example, in the instance of palm oil, we have evaluated multiple sustainable sourcing strategies and determined the associated cost of each at the company level. When appropriate, we may then estimate this cost premium down to a customer level based on facility-specific production information. Risks are communicated to management – including operations, procurement, and other departments – and if deemed material at the company level, are then elevated to the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) committee.

Asset Level Climate change risks and opportunities at the asset level are assessed by sustainability and environmental subject matter experts. Using the risk and opportunities assessed for the Company, we map these risks to each facility and brand identifying those which are most vulnerable or best positioned to capitalize on opportunities. State greenhouse gas regulations, such as California's Assembly Bill 32 - California Global Warming Solutions Act, are also considered when evaluating asset level risks. Asset level risks and opportunities are also quantified using the best information available, applying a variety of assumptions to establish the range of risk based on different scenarios. Facility-specific risks, if significant, are initially communicated to the Plant Manager and Vice President Operation for the business platform. If significant, communication is elevated to senior management and the ERM.

CC2.1c

How do you prioritize the risks and opportunities identified?

Conagra Brands’ robust Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) program is focused on aligning internal resources across the organization with the purpose of identifying, prioritizing, and allocating mitigation resources to threats that could affect long-term success, thereby reducing risk and enhancing shareholder value. The goal of the risk management structure is to embed risk management as part of the management culture throughout the organization. Conagra Brands' ERM process has five steps:

1. Identify: Uncover, track and spotlight key risk exposures in the enterprise portfolio 2. Quantify: Use risk scoring analysis to calculate probability, time to impact and severity 3. Manage: Assign accountability 4. Mitigate: Applying strategies to eliminate or reduce the possibility or severity of risk exposure 5. Monitor: Continuous review of progress against action plans to mitigate risks

We conduct correlation analyses on our top 21 risks, as well as on other financial and business risks. Our analysis helps us identify our potential exposure from each risk and develop an appropriate risk management strategy. Risks are quantified for prioritization as follows: probability + time to impact *severity. Though risks associated with the potential impacts of climate change have not ranked in our top 21 corporate risks, we apply a similar, but streamlined approach to evaluate these risks. For example, sustainability and environmental leaders prioritize regulatory climate risk with regard to probability, financial impact, and applicability across our business. Furthermore, ingredient sourcing risk associated with climate change issues – such as palm oil with regard to concern for deforestation – is also assessed against multiple sustainable sourcing strategies and respective financial premiums. When appropriate, results are shared with a member of our ERM team, who determines if additional information is needed for further evaluation and prioritization.

CC2.1d Please explain why you do not have a process in place for assessing and managing risks and opportunities from climate change, and whether you plan to introduce such a process in future

Main reason for not having a process Do you plan to introduce a process? Comment

CC2.2

Is climate change integrated into your business strategy?

Yes

CC2.2a

Please describe the process of how climate change is integrated into your business strategy and any outcomes of this process

i. Influence to Business Strategy The past year has brought substantial change to Conagra Brands to establish a truly sustainable and vibrant company. A key component of our business strategy is operating as a lean organization. This fits very well with the philosophy of getting the highest possible value of our natural resources and reducing risks that are material to our business.

ii. Climate Change Aspects Influencing Business Strategy Managing and mitigating regulatory, physical, and reputational climate change risks are at the foundation of several goals within Conagra Brands’ 2020 sustainability vision: reducing greenhouse gas emissions and water use; packaging sustainability; and supply chain engagement, including sustainable agriculture. Strategies to achieve these goals result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions – both in our own operations and though our supply chain – while delivering innovation that improves Conagra Brands' resilience to climate change by adapting to a changing physical and regulatory environment.

iii. Components of Short Term Climate Change Strategy Conagra Brands manages our short term climate change strategy by ongoing monitoring of our greenhouse gas emissions and tracking towards incremental, year- over-year greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for all of our manufacturing sites. We manage our greenhouse gas emissions in an Oracle-based, web- enabled database known internally as the Sustainable Development Report Tool (SDRT). This database calculates emissions from diesel, propane, refrigerants, compressed gases, natural gas and electricity utilized at our manufacturing facilities. Plants also have access to track their data on a weekly or daily basis to help facility green teams to modify their behavior and production schedule to produce long term reduction results.

iv. Components of Long Term Climate Change Strategy Our long term climate change strategy is reflected in our 2020 Sustainability Vision and Sustainable Palm Oil Strategy. Many of the energy efficiency projects implemented to work towards our 2020 GHG goal include increasing energy efficiency through streamlined processes and researching new technologies to think about changing the way we make our products to have a lower environmental impact. Within our supply chain, our strategies include improving transportation efficiency through pallet optimization or fleet upgrades and improving packaging sustainability by reducing packaging density. These programmatic strategies are important in driving incremental change year over year, continually improving how we do business in the long term.

v. Strategic Advantage over Competitors Over the past several years, Conagra Brands' sustainability programs have evolved from providing singular examples of sustainability projects with our customers to a model for how we do business and mechanism to further our relationship with customers and other stakeholders. Doing what is right for our communities and the environment is a business imperative, providing a strategic foundation from which we make business decisions. That said, we’ve also realized significant financial benefit resulting from our sustainability efforts: this year projects submitted under Conagra Brands’ Sustainable Development Awards program delivered over $5.0MM in annual savings, reducing costs and improving shareholder value.

vi. Most Substantial Climate-Related Business Decisions Our 2020 Sustainability Vision includes a goal to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent per pound of production which influences many business decisions and can even make projects a higher priority when they have a GHG benefit. Conagra Brands focused on line efficiency improvements in 2016 to meet year-over-year GHG per pound reduction targets. An example of a strategic decision to focus on line efficiency comes from our Orville Redenbacher facility in Rensselaer, Indiana where they reconfigured 2 lines to increase efficiency and reduced over 400 metric tons of GHG emissions. These best practices were then shared out across all of our facilities at our internal Sustainable Development Awards conference and are also being shared with plant managers across our network for implementation where applicable.

CC2.2b

Please explain why climate change is not integrated into your business strategy

CC2.2c

Does your company use an internal price on carbon?

No, and we currently don't anticipate doing so in the next 2 years

CC2.2d Please provide details and examples of how your company uses an internal price on carbon

CC2.3

Do you engage in activities that could either directly or indirectly influence public policy on climate change through any of the following? (tick all that apply)

Direct engagement with policy makers Trade associations

CC2.3a

On what issues have you been engaging directly with policy makers?

Corporate Proposed Focus of legislation Details of engagement Position legislative solution

Other: Sustainable packaging and food Conagra Brands is actively involved in a handful of organizations focused on Varies based on waste policies that indirectly affect GHG Support issues that indirectly affect industry strategy and innovation related to Scope organization, see emissions (Scope 3 sources) 3 GHG emissions, such as packaging and food waste management. below.

CC2.3b

Are you on the Board of any trade associations or provide funding beyond membership?

Yes

CC2.3c

Please enter the details of those trade associations that are likely to take a position on climate change legislation

Is your position on climate How have you, or are you Trade association change Please explain the trade association's position attempting to, influence the consistent position? with theirs?

Conagra Brands was a founding member and currently serves on the Board of AMERIPEN, a trade association founded in 2010 to address policy issues related to American Institute for packaging and the environment. This organization is actively engaged in packaging AMERIPEN's position is Packaging and the Consistent policy conversations and very focused on improving recovery of used packaging. They consistent with that of Conagra Environment are not directly involved in policy related specifically to climate change; however, Brands (AMERIPEN) improvements in the packaging and recycling could have an indirect influence as end- of-life materials management is a Scope 3 emissions source for many organizations. The Grocery Manufacturing Association (GMA) has jointly sponsored the Food Waste Reduction Alliance (FWRA) with the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the National Restaurant Association (NRA). The FWRA is actively engaging the broader food industry including manufacturers, retailers, and restaurant operators on issues related to reducing, donating and recycling food that would otherwise go to waste. Conagra Brands plays a leadership role in the FWRA and leads the policy committee. This committee is not directly intending to influence climate change policy, but could have Food Waste Reduction an indirect influence as end-of-life materials management is a Scope 3 emissions FWRA's position is consistent Consistent Alliance (FWRA) source for many organizations. As an example, the FWRA provided input for the with that of Conagra Brands public comments provided by GMA to the FDA regarding the FSMA proposed rule on preventative controls for animal feed. FWRA data was used to model environmental and economic impacts of the proposed rule as well as other input on common practices, all of which can affect Scope 3 emissions. The policy committee has also had conversations related to date labeling on food products. By educating consumers and having a consistent date label, the committee believes food waste could be drastically reduced at home. The Center for Integrated Modeling of Sustainable Agriculture & Nutrition Security (CIMSANS) was established by the ILSI Research Center in 2012. Conagra Brands ISLI does not advocate for International Life participated in development of their recent publication: “Assessing Sustainable policy, rather provides science Sciences Institute Consistent Nutrition Security: The Role of Food Systems” as a contributing author. While ILSI to inform; therefore, there is no (ILSI) and CIMSANS are not directly involved in policy development, their work is used to position to influence provide science to inform policy direction. This paper could affect climate change issues as a result of the impact to agriculture.

CC2.3d Do you publicly disclose a list of all the research organizations that you fund?

CC2.3e

Please provide details of the other engagement activities that you undertake

CC2.3f

What processes do you have in place to ensure that all of your direct and indirect activities that influence policy are consistent with your overall climate change strategy?

To ensure that Conagra Brands direct and indirect activities that influence policy are consistent with our overall climate change strategy, the same individual (Vice President who has responsibility for sustainability) actively participates in each of these organizations. This continuity ensures consistent messaging and provides line-of-sight to potential synergies across these organizations.

CC2.3g

Please explain why you do not engage with policy makers

Further Information

Page: CC3. Targets and Initiatives

CC3.1

Did you have an emissions reduction or renewable energy consumption or production target that was active (ongoing or reached completion) in the reporting year?

Intensity target

CC3.1a

Please provide details of your absolute target

Base year emissions % of % reduction covered by ID Scope emissions in Base year Target year Comment from base year target (metric tonnes Is this a science- scope CO2e) based target?

CC3.1b

Please provide details of your intensity target

Normalized % % of base year Is this a reduction Base Target ID Scope emissions Metric emissions science-based Comment from base year year in scope covered by target? year target

Conagra Brands publicly stated No, but we Scope 1+2 Metric tonnes greenhouse gas emissions goal applies anticipate setting Int1 (location- 100% 20% CO2e per unit of 2008 0.260 2020 to wholly-owned and operated facilities one in the next 2 based) production in the United States, Canada and years Mexico.

CC3.1c

Please also indicate what change in absolute emissions this intensity target reflects

Direction of Direction of change % change change % change anticipated in anticipated anticipated in anticipated ID absolute Scope in absolute absolute Scope 3 in absolute Comment 1+2 emissions at Scope 1+2 emissions at Scope 3 target emissions target emissions completion? completion?

This change in absolute emissions reduction associated with Conagra Brands intensity target was calculated assuming (1) Conagra Brands achieves its 20 Int1 Decrease 30.45 No change 0 percent per pound intensity goal and (2) that production volume remains the same between fiscal years 2016 and 2020.

CC3.1d

Please provide details of your renewable energy consumption and/or production target

% renewable

Base year energy for % renewable energy in target Energy types ID Base year energy type covered energy in base Target year year Comment covered by target (MWh) year

CC3.1e

For all of your targets, please provide details on the progress made in the reporting year

ID % complete (time) % complete (emissions or renewable energy) Comment

Int1 67% 7.15%

CC3.1f

Please explain (i) why you do not have a target; and (ii) forecast how your emissions will change over the next five years

CC3.2

Do you classify any of your existing goods and/or services as low carbon products or do they enable a third party to avoid GHG emissions?

No

CC3.2a

Please provide details of your products and/or services that you classify as low carbon products or that enable a third party to avoid GHG emissions

Taxonomy, project or Level of Description of product/Group Are you reporting methodology used to % revenue from % R&D in low

aggregation of products low carbon classify product/s as low carbon carbon product/s Comment product/s or low carbon or to product/s in the in the reporting

avoided emissions? calculate avoided reporting year year

emissions

CC3.3

Did you have emissions reduction initiatives that were active within the reporting year (this can include those in the planning and/or implementation phases)

Yes

CC3.3a

Please identify the total number of projects at each stage of development, and for those in the implementation stages, the estimated CO2e savings

Total estimated annual CO2e savings in metric tonnes Stage of development Number of projects CO2e (only for rows marked *)

Under investigation 5 To be implemented* 13 19613 Implementation commenced* 2 986 Implemented* 7 5509 Not to be implemented 0

CC3.3b

For those initiatives implemented in the reporting year, please provide details in the table below

Annual Estimated monetary Investment annual savings required Activity CO2e (unit (unit Payback Estimated Description of activity type savings Voluntary/ currency currency - period lifetime of Scope Comment (metric Mandatory - as as the

tonnes specified specified initiative

CO2e) in CC0.4) in CC0.4)

Nine applications submitted as part of our 2017 Sustainable Development Awards program improved the energy efficiency of building services, including Conagra Brands Energy such things as HVAC Scope 2 assumes a project efficiency: systems, lighting, motors, (location- Voluntary 1-3 1031 334000 578000 6-10 years lifetime of 10 years for Building and drives. For example, our based) years these types of services Hunt's tomato facility in infrastructure projects. Oakdale, California upgraded their lighting using LED lights that require 45 percent less energy and reduced 330,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. Five applications submitted as part of our 2017 Sustainable Development Awards program improved the energy efficiency of processes, including such Scope 1 Conagra Brands Energy things as process Scope 2 Voluntary 1-3 assumes a project efficiency: optimization, equipment 980 (location- 6-10 years years lifetime of 10 years for Processes removal and steam trap based) these types of projects. replacement. For example, our Swiss Miss facility in Menomonie, WI reconfigured their Swiss Miss line, removing a piece of equipment to decrease Annual Estimated monetary Investment annual savings required Activity CO2e (unit (unit Payback Estimated Description of activity type savings Voluntary/ currency currency - period lifetime of Scope Comment (metric Mandatory - as as the

tonnes specified specified initiative

CO2e) in CC0.4) in CC0.4)

downtime and reduce electricity by over 11,000 kilowatt hours. Engaging employees to change behavior and work practices to improve operating efficiency is a part of Conagra Brands' Reducing GHG continuous improvement emissions through culture. Daily and weekly behavioral change does tracking of natural gas and not require capital electricity use along with investment, resulting in preventative maintenance Scope 2 immediate payback. Behavioral and shutdown procedures to (location- Voluntary However, it is difficult to Ongoing change conserve energy have been based) isolate the collective implemented at many impact associated with Conagra Brands' facilities. employee engagement For example, our popcorn initiatives to estimate rollstock facility in Maple monetary savings and Grove, Minn. formalized a GHG emissions 35-item long shutdown reductions. schedule to modify employee behavior and save over 5,000 kilowatt hours annually. Five applications submitted as part of our 2017 There is no expiration to Product Sustainable Development Scope 3 Voluntary Ongoing the duration of this design Awards program improved project. packaging sustainability, reducing supply chain GHG Annual Estimated monetary Investment annual savings required Activity CO2e (unit (unit Payback Estimated Description of activity type savings Voluntary/ currency currency - period lifetime of Scope Comment (metric Mandatory - as as the

tonnes specified specified initiative

CO2e) in CC0.4) in CC0.4)

emissions associated with sourcing packaging raw materials. For example, our frozen foods facility in Russellville, Ark. eliminated overhang on PF Chang and Bertolli pallets, saving 150,000 pounds of packaging and reducing 25,000 gallons of diesel through shipping efficiency.

CC3.3c

What methods do you use to drive investment in emissions reduction activities?

Method Comment

Many of Conagra Brands' manufacturing facilities have active Green Teams that engage employees in our journey towards our 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target and other sustainability goals. We'e also integrated sustainability into the Conagra Employee engagement Performance System (CPS), the company's continuous improvement program to eliminate losses of any kind, including energy. The program guides focused improvement, maintenance, and lean manufacturing efforts to increase line efficiency. Internal Conagra Brands' Sustainable Development Awards is an internal program intended to drive and reward innovative approaches to incentives/recognition sustainability that produce tangible business results. This year, combined results from over 58 entries reduced GHG emissions by programs Method Comment

more than 2,000 metric tons. Since the program was re-launched in 2009, nearly 640 entries have reduced GHG emissions by over 183,000 metric tons. Internal Conagra Brands' Supply Chain Leadership (EHS, Operations, Engineering, and Continuous Improvement), Plant Managers, and incentives/recognition many of their direct reports are accountable to achieving year-over-year GHG reductions as part of their annual performance programs evaluation, which directly impacts merit salary increase, bonus, and equity compensation awards.

CC3.3d

If you do not have any emissions reduction initiatives, please explain why not

Further Information

Page: CC4. Communication

CC4.1

Have you published information about your organization’s response to climate change and GHG emissions performance for this reporting year in places other than in your CDP response? If so, please attach the publication(s)

Page/Section Publication Attach the document reference Status Comment

In mainstream reports (including https://www.cdp.net/sites/2017/32/3732/Climate Change 2017/Shared an integrated Complete 11-12 Documents/Attachments/CC4.1/2016-fiscal-proxy-report.PDF report) but have not used the Page/Section Publication Attach the document reference Status Comment

CDSB Framework Better Planet section of our In voluntary https://www.cdp.net/sites/2017/32/3732/Climate Change 2017/Shared Complete 2016 communications Documents/Attachments/CC4.1/2016_ConAgra_Foods_Citizenship_Report_Updated_2.15.17.pdf Citizenship Report

Further Information

Module: Risks and Opportunities

Page: CC5. Climate Change Risks

CC5.1

Have you identified any inherent climate change risks that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure? Tick all that apply

Risks driven by changes in regulation Risks driven by changes in physical climate parameters Risks driven by changes in other climate-related developments

CC5.1a

Please describe your inherent risks that are driven by changes in regulation

Potential Direct/ Magnitude Risk driver Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated impact Indirect of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

The EPA’s Greenhouse Gas The method Mandatory Conagra Brands is Reporting Rule using to manage affects thirteen the Emission Conagra Brands’ Reporting facilities, Obligation risk is a The financial increasing proprietary, web- implications of administrative based reporting increasing GHG The incremental work associated application reporting expense with annual invested in 2008 to obligations are associated with reporting. ensure timely and nominal (estimate reporting our Furthermore, two accurate at less than GHG emissions facilities in greenhouse gas $10,000) as to the US EPA California are emissions Conagra Brands for these subject to the reporting. The has tracked locations is greenhouse gas web-based Emission Increased facility-specific nominal, reporting and Up to 1 Virtually reporting reporting operational Direct Low greenhouse gas requiring only verification year certain application, obligations cost emissions since the time and requirements referred to as the 2008. The effort of under the Sustainable additional corporate California Global Development administrative resources to Warming Reporting Tool effort associated enter information Solutions Act. This (SDRT), is also the with annual into EPA's e- reporting method used for reporting has been GGRT system obligation both the 13 Conagra integrated into the (estimate at less increases Brands locations in responsibilities of than $5,000). administrative fiscal year 2016 existing work associated that were required employees. with annual to report GHG reporting and adds emissions under contractual the EPA’s expense Greenhouse Gas associated with Mandatory verification Reporting Rule. services.

Potential Direct/ Magnitude Risk driver Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated impact Indirect of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

Conagra Brands has invested significant capital in our California We have worked facilities to improve with the California energy efficiency League of Food and reduce natural Processors to gas use, reducing understand the Conagra Brands the financial liability The cost to three compliance has two facilities in associated with implement the instruments (sector California AB32. For steam turbine credits, auction producing Hunt's example, in our project at our allowances, and tomatoes that are fresh-pack tomato Helm, Calif. offsets) and regulated by facility in Helm, facility was $1.1 associated Assembly Bill 32 - California, two million; Conagra compliance costs. Global Warming electric motors Brands received Cap and Increased We have Solutions Act, with Up to 1 Virtually were converted to a $500,000 trade operational Direct Medium estimated the objective of year certain steam turbines in incentive to schemes cost compliance costs reducing GHG 2011 so that steam complete the through 2020, emissions from was captured that project. consistent with the 600+ facilities by was previously Furthermore, the current California about 15 percent vented. This energy savings Air Resources during the period project allowed for from this project Board allocation 2012 – 2020, more consistent resulted in a less approach. The which became use of boilers, than 3-year potential cost of effective in 2012. improved operating payback. complying with efficiency, and it AB32 is reduced natural considered gas use by 35,000 business dekatherms, confidential. eliminating the release of 2,090 metric tonnes of GHGs annually.

Potential Direct/ Magnitude Risk driver Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated impact Indirect of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

During fiscal year Conagra Brands 2016, the United actively tracks States signed onto activity by the the Paris House and Senate, Agreement, as well as committing the regulatory activity nation to 26-28 by the US percent reduction Environmental in GHG emissions Protection Agency. by 2025 when Conagra Brands is The potential compared to 2005 a member of the financial levels. Although Grocery implications of we have since Manufacturer's uncertainty began the Association (GMA) surrounding new withdraw there still which also helps The incremental regulation is remains notify our legal and cost to track unknown, as it is Uncertainty uncertainty of sustainability team political activity Increased About as highly dependent surrounding state and city level of any proposed and monitor operational >6 years Direct likely as Medium on what industries new initiatives to new climate proposed cost not are included in the regulation continue the path. change regulations climate new regulation, the Conagra has 5 that may affect our regulations is emission threshold facilities in business. To not significant. for inclusion; and locations that have reduce exposure the scheme that is signed the U.S. with possible GHG applied (e.g. cap Climate Alliance regulations, we are and trade versus and 10 facilities in also implementing carbon tax). states that have projects to reduce pledged to our direct and continue to follow indirect emissions the Paris at our Agreement. manufacturing Without insight sites in the US. We regarding the strategically industries that will prioritize energy be included and conservation emissions projects at facilities

Potential Direct/ Magnitude Risk driver Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated impact Indirect of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

threshold for where direct GHG applicability, we emissions exceed cannot accurately 25,000 metric tons, model financial a frequently impacts. proposed Historically, many threshold, to examples of GHG minimize financial legislation has risks associated targeted facilities with potential where direct Federal GHG greenhouse gas regulations. emissions exceed 25,000 CO2e annually; during fiscal year 2016, Conagra Brands had 13 manufacturing facilities that would be affected under this scenario. Conagra Brands' Environmental, Conagra Brands' Health and Safety facilities in the Conagra Brands Department The cost of our United States are has not quantified actively monitors environmental subject to changes Increased the potential air pollution Air pollution 1 to 3 Low- management in air pollution operational Direct Likely financial regulations and limits years medium system is less limits from the cost implications of maintains and than $50,000 Environmental stricter air pollution tracks all air per year. Protection Agency limits/ permits within our (EPA). environmental management system.

CC5.1b

Please describe your inherent risks that are driven by changes in physical climate parameters

Direct/ Potential Magnitude Risk driver Description Timeframe Indirect Likelihood Estimated impact of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

To mitigate these The potential risks, as well as financial other food safety implications of and quality risks, changes in mean the company has temperature developed a resides primarily comprehensive within our sourcing strategy. agricultural supply As part of our Managing chain. Conagra business continuity season-to- Brands has not planning, Conagra season Changes in mean modeled the Brands has variations in temperature may potential financial Change in analyzed our supply crop harvest is affect growing Increased Indirect implications of mean More likely risk to develop something seasons for the operational >6 years (Supply Medium this risk due to (average) than not strategic we've managed agricultural crops cost chain) the uncertainty of temperature partnerships with for decades and we purchase as affected suppliers, minimize represents no ingredients. geographies and sole-sourced incremental respective ingredients, and expense to our timeframe of identify alternate business. impact, and the suppliers and dynamic nature of contract our sourcing manufacturers to strategy (for minimize production example, many disruptions in the ingredients may instance of an be sourced from unexpected multiple markets). disruption in supply. Direct/ Potential Magnitude Risk driver Description Timeframe Indirect Likelihood Estimated impact of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

For crops where Conagra Brands The potential has direct financial relationships with implications of farmers, we changes in mean encourage precipitation implementation of resides primarily sustainable within our agriculture practices Working with agricultural supply that conserve water, our grower chain. Conagra such as drip partners is Brands has not irrigation (tomatoes) fundamental to Changes in mean modeled the and irrigation our business precipitation may potential financial systems that only relationship and Change in affect growing Increased Indirect About as implications of allow water to be therefore, we mean 1 to 3 seasons for the operational (Supply likely as Medium this risk due to ran during the have not (average) years agricultural crops cost chain) not the uncertainty of lowest evaporation specifically precipitation we purchase as affected time to minimize isolated the ingredients. geographies and water loss costs respective (popcorn). Best associated with timeframe of practices such as sustainable impact, and the these help to agriculture dynamic nature of reduce the programs. our sourcing likelihood and strategy (for magnitude of the example, many risk as we become ingredients may as efficient as be sourced from possible with our multiple markets). water and decrease our impact on utilizing fresh water. Climate change The potential For crops where Working with Induced associated with Increased financial Conagra Brands our grower changes in More likely water resource operational >6 years Direct Medium implications of has direct partners is natural than not constraints. The cost negative impacts relationships with fundamental to resources greatest physical to water farmers, we our business Direct/ Potential Magnitude Risk driver Description Timeframe Indirect Likelihood Estimated impact of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

risk from climate resources – both encourage relationship and change remains in in terms of implementation of therefore, we our supply chain, quantity and sustainable have not which provides the quality –resides agriculture practices specifically agricultural primarily within that conserve water, isolated the ingredients of our our agricultural such as drip costs products. With supply chain. irrigation (tomatoes) associated with approximately 70 Conagra Brands and irrigation sustainable percent of water in has not modeled systems that only agriculture the United States the potential allow water to be programs. used for supply chain ran during the agriculture, any financial lowest evaporation increase in water implications of time to minimize scarcity resulting changes in mean water loss from climate precipitation. (popcorn). Best change presents a practices such as significant physical these help to risk. reduce the likelihood and magnitude of the risk as we become as efficient as possible with our water and decrease our impact on utilizing fresh water. Palm oil sourcing; To mitigate this risk, The cost of The potential deforestation Conagra Brands is participating in financial associated with a member of the RSPO is $3,000 implications of Induced palm oil Roundtable on annually; the Increased Indirect climate change changes in plantations in Up to 1 Virtually Low- Sustainable Palm costs operational (Supply impacts natural Malaysia and year certain medium Oil (RSPO), an associated with cost chain) associated with resources Indonesia has organization purchasing deforestation in required dedicated to CSPO Green Southeast Asia immediate promoting the Palm associated with attention by our growth and use of Certificates and Direct/ Potential Magnitude Risk driver Description Timeframe Indirect Likelihood Estimated impact of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

industry to work palm oil sourcing sustainable palm oil Mass Balance collaboratively with is unknown. products through oil and oil stakeholders to credible global derivatives is create a standards and business sustainable market engagement of confidential. for palm oil. stakeholders. As a Company, we are committed to the responsible sourcing of this raw material and set a target for 100 percent sourcing of palm oil from RSPO sustainable sources by 2015; we have achieved it through a combination of CSPO Green Palm Certificates and the Mass Balance system. These help create a sustainable market for palm oil and palm derivatives. The farming The potential To mitigate these Managing operations financial risks, as well as season-to- embedded in our implications of other food safety season Change in supply chain are extreme weather and quality risks, variations in precipitation Increased Indirect highly susceptible Up to 1 resides primarily the Company has crop harvest is extremes operational (Supply Very likely Low to weather year within our developed a something and cost chain) variability and agricultural supply comprehensive we've managed droughts severe weather chain. The sourcing strategy. for decades and events, including potential financial As part of our represents no droughts, floods implications of business continuity incremental Direct/ Potential Magnitude Risk driver Description Timeframe Indirect Likelihood Estimated impact of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

and severe these events are planning, Conagra expense to our storms. highly dependent Brands has business. on what crops are analyzed our supply impacted. risk to develop strategic partnerships with suppliers, minimize sole-sourced ingredients, and identify alternate suppliers and contract manufacturers to minimize production disruptions in the instance of an unexpected disruption in supply.

CC5.1c

Please describe your inherent risks that are driven by changes in other climate-related developments

Direct/ Risk Potential Magnitude Description Timeframe Indirect Likelihood Estimated driver impact of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

Many customers, Conagra Brands To manage this The cost employees, Reduced has not risk, Conagra associated with 1 to 3 Reputation investors, non- demand for Direct Likely Medium determined Brands has communicating years governmental goods/services potential financial publicly our climate organizations implications of the communicated a change strategy Direct/ Risk Potential Magnitude Description Timeframe Indirect Likelihood Estimated driver impact of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

(NGOs), and impacts to greenhouse gas is largely other corporate reduction goal embedded in the stakeholders reputation related and is cost of producing have high- to climate transparent about an annual standards for change. our progress. Our Citizenship report transparency progress and (less than related to climate information about $100,000 change and our reduction annually). There other activities are is no incremental environmental annually cost associated issues. Action or published in our with maintaining inaction can annual relationships with negatively affect Citizenship interested the company's Report. We also stakeholders, as reputation have direct the expense is positively or dialogue around embedded within negatively our climate existing depending on change strategy employees' the situation. with interested salaries. stakeholders where appropriate. For Conagra The estimated Conagra Brands Putting the Brands, we financial actively manages customer first is Other: interpret this risk implications are the customer core to Conagra Increased driver in two difficult to component of Brands business demand for ways: (1) quantify. For this risk, taking a success; sustainable increasing some customers, collaborative therefore, building Changing food products expectations of 1 to 3 Medium- sustainability approach to sustainability into consumer and risk to Direct Very likely our retail and years high issues, including managing the business behavior having products foodservice climate change, is sustainability relationship is rejected for not customers and an important part expectations with part of our normal having (2) changing of our business key customers operating cost. contemporary preferences of relationship; through direct Similarly, attributes consumers however, it is not engagement and monitoring buying our clear to what consultation, and changing Direct/ Risk Potential Magnitude Description Timeframe Indirect Likelihood Estimated driver impact of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

products. First, degree transparency consumer many of our sustainability through preferences is customers - performance information one of our including affects business sharing. For Consumer grocers, quick- growth. For example, we are Insights team’s service consumers, active core objectives restaurants and studies have participants on and therefore part other food indicated that key customers’ of our normal service entities - despite supplier business strategy have increasing consumers sustainability with no significant expectations indicating they programs and incremental cost regarding prefer sustainable routinely provide to the company. sustainability products, what our sales team within their they actually buy with information supply chains. differs when to proactively Secondly, simultaneously share with consumers are faced with other customers as growing considerations, part of business increasingly such as price and updates. aware of health convenience. and environmental issues – including climate change – associated with the products they buy.

CC5.1d

Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent risks driven by changes in regulation that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure

CC5.1e

Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent risks driven by changes in physical climate parameters that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure

CC5.1f

Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent risks driven by changes in other climate-related developments that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure

Further Information

Page: CC6. Climate Change Opportunities

CC6.1

Have you identified any inherent climate change opportunities that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure? Tick all that apply

Opportunities driven by changes in regulation Opportunities driven by changes in physical climate parameters Opportunities driven by changes in other climate-related developments

CC6.1a

Please describe your inherent opportunities that are driven by changes in regulation

Opportunity Potential Magnitude Description Timeframe Direct/Indirect Likelihood Estimated driver impact of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

Conagra Brands utilizes a method to first proactively evaluate available incentives and These projects then evaluate still require a applicable energy significant capital Energy efficiency project investment; efficiency In 2016, rather than however, incentives can Conagra simply seeking incentives enable bring projects Brands incentives for the company to that fall out-of- received over planned energy implement scope within $110,000 projects. energy current internal dollars in Projects resulted conservation Fuel/energy Reduced return-on- Up to 1 Virtually Federal and from this process projects that taxes and capital Direct Low investment year certain State energy range from ultra- would not regulations costs thresholds, incentives to efficient lighting otherwise meet enabling subsidize the upgrades, such internal rate-of- implementation capital cost of as the LED return of projects that energy installation in one requirements. without such, efficiency of our largest Conagra Brands would not have projects. frozen foods invested about been completed. warehouse, to $300,000 in control upgrades projects that and steam trap received replacements. incentives. These actions have increased the likelihood and magnitude of the opportunity; we

Opportunity Potential Magnitude Description Timeframe Direct/Indirect Likelihood Estimated driver impact of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

expect to continue these actions for as long as incentives are able to help reduce capital costs. Conagra Brands' Conagra Research and Brands believes Development While the the data team leads implementation transparency of the SmartLabel™ and manage the initiative and costs of the Conagra Brands SmartLabel™ coordinates with overall program participates in program will subject matter are material, the Grocery translate into experts to ensure cost to include Manufacturer brand loyalty as relevant data climate change Association's consumers will allowed within and sustainability (GMA) voluntary be able to the standard is content is Product standard, ensure their collected and minimal as that labeling SmartLabel™. Wider 1 to 3 money is spent included within content is regulations This new social Direct Likely Low years on products that each product's generally used and innovative benefits align with their launch of for other standards program own values SmartLabel™. purposes (like provides our including The the annual consumers reducing their SmartLabel™ citizenship access to carbon team works report) and additional footprint. While closely with the SmartLabel™ details about our there may be a Sustainability simply provides products. future monetary team to ensure another benefit, any climate- communication Conagra related impacts vehicle for the Brands has not are included in content. put a value to it. the "Other Information" drop

Opportunity Potential Magnitude Description Timeframe Direct/Indirect Likelihood Estimated driver impact of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

down "Sustainability" tab.

CC6.1b

Please describe your inherent opportunities that are driven by changes in physical climate parameters

Opportunity Potential Direct/ Magnitude Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated driver impact Indirect of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

We believe that Methods to capitalize limited long-term on opportunities are physical the same to manage opportunities from risks, including The cost for climate change Conagra Brands’ monitoring Changes in remain primarily Agricultural Services regional weather mean related to water team assessment of changes in the temperature resources. current science to US is marginal may affect Change in However, the evaluate potential and a standard growing Reduced Indirect mean 3 to 6 More likely financial physical opportunities. business practice seasons for capital (Supply Medium (average) years than not implications of Most of Conagra for our corporate the costs chain) temperature changes in mean Brands’ Tier 1 supply Agricultural agricultural (average) chain resides in North Services crops we temperature is America, therefore department; purchase as unknown, as there climate change may therefore, there is ingredients. is so much result in moderate no incremental uncertainty increases in crop cost. regarding affects to yields. The IPCC climate at a (2007) concluded regional level. that, for North

Opportunity Potential Direct/ Magnitude Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated driver impact Indirect of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

America as a whole, “moderate climate change will likely increase yields of North American rain fed agriculture, but with smaller increases and more spatial variability than in earlier estimates. Most studies project likely climate-related yield increases of 5- 20 percent over the first decades of the century, with the overall positive effects of climate persisting through much or all of the 21st century.” The possible physical changes may provide opportunity for Conagra Brands through increased productivity of our agricultural supply chain. We believe this represents a unique advantage over some of our global competitors who source a greater percentage of their agricultural raw materials from the international market,

Opportunity Potential Direct/ Magnitude Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated driver impact Indirect of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

which is predicted to be more severely impacted by climate change. Regardless, Conagra Brands will cautiously monitor this potential opportunity as many other factors will impact the North American agricultural sector, such as the growing demands for agricultural exports to meet the global food economy. Methods to capitalize We believe that on opportunities are limited long-term the same to manage physical risks, including The cost for opportunities from Conagra Brands’ monitoring Changes in climate change Agricultural Services regional weather mean remain primarily team assessment of changes in the precipitation related to water current science to US is marginal may affect resources. evaluate potential Change in and a standard growing Reduced Indirect However, the physical opportunities. mean 3 to 6 More likely business practice seasons for capital (Supply Medium financial Most of Conagra (average) years than not for our corporate the costs chain) implications of Brands’ Tier 1 supply precipitation Agricultural agricultural changes in mean chain resides in North Services crops we precipitation is America, therefore department; purchase as unknown, as there climate change may therefore, there is ingredients. is so much result in moderate no incremental uncertainty increases in crop cost. regarding affects to yields. The IPCC climate at a (2007) concluded regional level. that, for North America as a whole,

Opportunity Potential Direct/ Magnitude Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated driver impact Indirect of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

“moderate climate change will likely increase yields of North American rain fed agriculture, but with smaller increases and more spatial variability than in earlier estimates. Most studies project likely climate-related yield increases of 5- 20 percent over the first decades of the century, with the overall positive effects of climate persisting through much or all of the 21st century.” The possible physical changes may provide opportunity for Conagra Brands through increased productivity of our agricultural supply chain. We believe this represents a unique advantage over some of our global competitors who source a greater percentage of their agricultural raw materials from the international market, which is predicted to

Opportunity Potential Direct/ Magnitude Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated driver impact Indirect of impact Management Cost of financial method management implications

be more severely impacted by climate change. Regardless, Conagra Brands will cautiously monitor this potential opportunity as many other factors will impact the North American agricultural sector, such as the growing demands for agricultural exports to meet the global food economy.

CC6.1c

Please describe your inherent opportunities that are driven by changes in other climate-related developments

Opportunity Direct/ Magnitude Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated driver Indirect of impact Management Cost of Potential impact financial method management implications

Companies Conagra Brands To capitalize on The cost that has not this opportunity, associated with demonstrate determined we recognize that better Increased leadership in About as potential we must communicating demand for Up to 1 Reputation managing risks Direct likely as Low financial deliberately apply our climate existing year associated not implications of a “climate change change strategy products/services with climate the impacts to lens” to every and building change and corporate aspect of our relationships taking action to reputation due business. For with interested

Opportunity Direct/ Magnitude Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated driver Indirect of impact Management Cost of Potential impact financial method management implications

reduce to leadership on example, we must stakeholders is greenhouse issues related to do better at built into gas emissions climate change. communicating existing may realize the successes employee enhanced we’ve had in the responsibilities corporate areas of and does not reputations. packaging add significant innovation and incremental operating cost (less than efficiency in a way $100,000 that reaches annually). interested stakeholders. We’ve taken notable steps to be more transparent in our communications. Consumers Though difficult To capitalize on Monitoring are growing to quantify, we this opportunity, changing increasingly believe there are we are working to consumer aware of the limited financial weave preferences is environmental benefits of sustainability into one of our issues – changing the brand Consumer including consumer essences of Insights team’s climate change Increased preferences products where Changing About as core objectives – associated demand for Up to 1 within our consumer insights consumer Direct likely as Low and therefore with the existing year existing product show that our behavior not part of our products they products/services portfolio. For target consumer normal buy. This consumers, may show business sentiment may studies have preference to strategy with no extend to the indicated that products that offer significant food that they despite environmental incremental purchase, consumers benefits. This may cost to the influencing indicating they be shared through company. purchasing prefer processing

Opportunity Direct/ Magnitude Description Timeframe Likelihood Estimated driver Indirect of impact Management Cost of Potential impact financial method management implications

decisions sustainable advantage (Hunt's regarding our products, what steam peeled products. they actually buy tomatoes), local differs when sourcing (dairy for simultaneously Swiss Miss), or faced with other packaging considerations, innovation (use of such as price How 2 Recycle and label on select convenience. products).

CC6.1d

Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent opportunities driven by changes in regulation that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure

CC6.1e

Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent opportunities driven by changes in physical climate parameters that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure

CC6.1f Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent opportunities driven by changes in other climate-related developments that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure

Further Information

Module: GHG Emissions Accounting, Energy and Fuel Use, and Trading

Page: CC7. Emissions Methodology

CC7.1

Please provide your base year and base year emissions (Scopes 1 and 2)

Base year Base year emissions (metric tonnes CO2e) Scope

Mon 28 May 2007 - Tue 27 May Scope 1 2008 468061

Mon 28 May 2007 - Tue 27 May Scope 2 (location-based) 2008 488166

Tue 02 May 2017 - Tue 02 May Scope 2 (market-based) 2017

CC7.2

Please give the name of the standard, protocol or methodology you have used to collect activity data and calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions

Please select the published methodologies that you use

US EPA Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition) US EPA Climate Leaders: Indirect Emissions from Purchases/Sales of Electricity and Steam The Climate Registry: General Reporting Protocol

CC7.2a

If you have selected "Other" in CC7.2 please provide details of the standard, protocol or methodology you have used to collect activity data and calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions

CC7.3

Please give the source for the global warming potentials you have used

Gas Reference

CO2 IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR - 100 year) CH4 IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR - 100 year) N2O IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR - 100 year) HFCs IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR - 100 year) Other: CFCs Other: The Climate Registry General Reporting Protocol - Global Warming Potentials of Refrigerant Blends

CC7.4

Please give the emissions factors you have applied and their origin; alternatively, please attach an Excel spreadsheet with this data at the bottom of this page

Fuel/Material/Energy Emission Factor Unit Reference

Biogas 115.4 lb CO2e per 1000 ft3 The Climate Registry Electronic Code of Federal Diesel/Gas oil 22.58251 lb CO2e per gallon Regulations metric tonnes CO2e per Electronic Code of Federal Bituminous coal 2.58404 metric tonne Regulations Electronic Code of Federal Distillate fuel oil No 6 25.39895 lb CO2e per gallon Regulations metric tonnes CO2e per Electronic Code of Federal Natural gas 0.01556 MWh Regulations Electronic Code of Federal Propane 12.6661 lb CO2e per gallon Regulations

Further Information

Page: CC8. Emissions Data - (1 Jun 2015 - 31 May 2016)

CC8.1

Please select the boundary you are using for your Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas inventory

Operational control

CC8.2 Please provide your gross global Scope 1 emissions figures in metric tonnes CO2e

416854

CC8.3

Please describe your approach to reporting Scope 2 emissions

Scope 2, location- Scope 2, market- Comment based based

This marks the first year that Conagra Brands has conducted an evaluation of our Scope 2 emissions based on the We are reporting a We are reporting a market-based methodology. While we did not enter into any contractual instruments with energy attributes in fiscal Scope 2, location- Scope 2, market- year 2016, we wanted to evaluate the methodology so we could successfully integrate the market-based method of based figure based figure determining our Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions into our own reporting process.

CC8.3a

Please provide your gross global Scope 2 emissions figures in metric tonnes CO2e

Scope 2, location-based Scope 2, market-based (if applicable) Comment

402565 396341

CC8.4 Are there any sources (e.g. facilities, specific GHGs, activities, geographies, etc.) of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions that are within your selected reporting boundary which are not included in your disclosure?

Yes

CC8.4a

Please provide details of the sources of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions that are within your selected reporting boundary which are not included in your disclosure

Relevance of Relevance of Relevance of market-based location-based Source Scope 1 Scope 2 Explain why the source is excluded Scope 2 emissions emissions from emissions from this this source (if from this source applicable) source

Conagra Brands has not yet integrated our Concord, NH facility into our Conagra Brands' Emissions are Emissions are Emissions are not sustainability reporting due to its size and structure. This facility represents less Blake's Facility in not relevant not relevant relevant than 0.2% of our total production, resulting in emissions that will not substantially Concord, NH change our carbon footprint.

CC8.5

Please estimate the level of uncertainty of the total gross global Scope 1 and 2 emissions figures that you have supplied and specify the sources of uncertainty in your data gathering, handling and calculations

Uncertainty Main sources Please expand on the uncertainty in your data range of uncertainty Scope

Conagra Brands believes our reported Scope 1 emissions are substantially accurate; sources of uncertainty Data Gaps include: (1) the assumption that information provided by third party vendors (such as utility companies, fuel Less than or Scope 1 Assumptions providers) is accurate; (2) that published emissions factors are representative of actual combustion equal to 2% conditions; and (3) immaterial data gaps for manufacturing facility refrigerant use less than 50 pounds per year or secondary fuel use less than 100 gallons per year. Scope 2 Less than or Assumptions Conagra Brands believes our reported Scope 2 emissions are substantially accurate; sources of uncertainty (location- equal to 2% include the assumption that information provided by utility companies is accurate. based) Scope 2 Less than or Data Gaps Much of the uncertainty surrounding the Scope 2 market-based emissions is a result of the lack of publicly (market- equal to 2% available data from our electricity supplier. based)

CC8.6

Please indicate the verification/assurance status that applies to your reported Scope 1 emissions

Third party verification or assurance process in place

CC8.6a

Please provide further details of the verification/assurance undertaken for your Scope 1 emissions, and attach the relevant statements

Proportion Type of of reported Status in verification Relevant Verification Scope 1 the current or Page/section standard or assurance Attach the statement emissions reporting assurance reference cycle in place verified (%) year

https://www.cdp.net/sites/2017/32/3732/Climate Change Annual Limited ISO14064- Complete 2017/Shared Documents/Attachments/CC8.6a/Conagra GHG All 100 process assurance 3 emissions Verification Statement.pdf

CC8.6b

Please provide further details of the regulatory regime to which you are complying that specifies the use of Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS)

Regulation % of emissions covered by the system Compliance period Evidence of submission

CC8.7

Please indicate the verification/assurance status that applies to at least one of your reported Scope 2 emissions figures

Third party verification or assurance process in place

CC8.7a

Please provide further details of the verification/assurance undertaken for your location-based and/or market-based Scope 2 emissions, and attach the relevant statements

Proportion Type of Location- Verification Status in of verification Page/Section Relevant based or or the reported or reference standard market- assurance current Attach the statement Scope 2 assurance based cycle in reporting emissions

figure? place year verified

(%)

https://www.cdp.net/sites/2017/32/3732/Climate Change Location- Annual Limited ISO14064- Complete 2017/Shared Documents/Attachments/CC8.7a/Conagra All 100 based process assurance 3 GHG emissions Verification Statement.pdf First year it https://www.cdp.net/sites/2017/32/3732/Climate Change Market- Annual Limited ISO14064- has taken 2017/Shared Documents/Attachments/CC8.7a/Conagra All 100 based process assurance 3 place GHG emissions Verification Statement.pdf

CC8.8

Please identify if any data points have been verified as part of the third party verification work undertaken, other than the verification of emissions figures reported in CC8.6, CC8.7 and CC14.2

Additional data points verified Comment

Year on year emissions intensity Production data is included in the verification process, providing basis for calculating GHG emissions per pound and figure reporting progress towards our 2020 GHG reduction goal.

CC8.9

Are carbon dioxide emissions from biologically sequestered carbon relevant to your organization?

No

CC8.9a Please provide the emissions from biologically sequestered carbon relevant to your organization in metric tonnes CO2

Further Information

Page: CC9. Scope 1 Emissions Breakdown - (1 Jun 2015 - 31 May 2016)

CC9.1

Do you have Scope 1 emissions sources in more than one country?

Yes

CC9.1a

Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by country/region

Country/Region Scope 1 metric tonnes CO2e

United States of America 398418 Canada 11633 Mexico 6802

CC9.2

Please indicate which other Scope 1 emissions breakdowns you are able to provide (tick all that apply)

CC9.2a

Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by business division

Business division Scope 1 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)

CC9.2b

Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by facility

Facility Scope 1 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e) Latitude Longitude

CC9.2c

Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by GHG type

GHG type Scope 1 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)

CC9.2d

Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by activity

Scope 1 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e) Activity

Further Information

Page: CC10. Scope 2 Emissions Breakdown - (1 Jun 2015 - 31 May 2016)

CC10.1

Do you have Scope 2 emissions sources in more than one country?

Yes

CC10.1a

Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions and energy consumption by country/region

Purchased and Purchased and consumed low Scope 2, market-based Country/Region consumed carbon electricity, heat, steam or Scope 2, location-based (metric (metric tonnes CO2e) electricity, heat, cooling accounted in market-based tonnes CO2e) steam or cooling approach (MWh)

(MWh)

United States of 396378 390154 681330 0 America Canada 585 585 12834 0 Mexico 5603 5603 10190 0

CC10.2

Please indicate which other Scope 2 emissions breakdowns you are able to provide (tick all that apply)

CC10.2a

Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions by business division

Scope 2, location-based Business division (metric tonnes CO2e) Scope 2, market-based

(metric tonnes CO2e)

CC10.2b

Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions by facility

Facility Scope 2, location-based (metric tonnes CO2e) Scope 2, market-based (metric tonnes CO2e)

CC10.2c

Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions by activity

Activity Scope 2, location-based (metric tonnes CO2e) Scope 2, market-based (metric tonnes CO2e)

Further Information

Page: CC11. Energy

CC11.1

What percentage of your total operational spend in the reporting year was on energy?

More than 0% but less than or equal to 5%

CC11.2

Please state how much heat, steam, and cooling in MWh your organization has purchased and consumed during the reporting year

Energy type MWh

Heat 0 Steam 0 Cooling 0

CC11.3

Please state how much fuel in MWh your organization has consumed (for energy purposes) during the reporting year

1958456.92

CC11.3a

Please complete the table by breaking down the total "Fuel" figure entered above by fuel type

Fuels MWh

Diesel/Gas oil 2914 Propane 4416 Natural gas 1951127 Jet gasoline 18399

CC11.4 Please provide details of the electricity, heat, steam or cooling amounts that were accounted at a low carbon emission factor in the market-based Scope 2 figure reported in CC8.3a

MWh consumed Emissions factor (in associated with low carbon units of metric Basis for applying a low carbon emission factor Comment electricity, heat, steam or tonnes CO2e per

cooling MWh)

No purchases or generation of low carbon electricity, heat, We did not purchase low carbon steam or cooling accounted with a low carbon emissions 0 emission electricity in fiscal year 2016. factor

CC11.5

Please report how much electricity you produce in MWh, and how much electricity you consume in MWh

Consumed

electricity that is Total renewable Consumed renewable Total electricity consumed Total electricity produced purchased (MWh) electricity electricity that is produced Comment (MWh) (MWh) produced (MWh) by company (MWh)

704354 704354 0 0 0

Further Information

Page: CC12. Emissions Performance

CC12.1 How do your gross global emissions (Scope 1 and 2 combined) for the reporting year compare to the previous year?

Decreased

CC12.1a

Please identify the reasons for any change in your gross global emissions (Scope 1 and 2 combined) and for each of them specify how your emissions compare to the previous year

Emissions Direction Reason value Please explain and include calculation of change (percentage)

Conagra Brands has invested millions of dollars in capital to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving energy efficiency, including: building fabric and building services upgrades, process Emissions 2.42 Decrease improvements, and transportation efficiency. Over 50 projects submitted under Conagra Brands 2017 reduction activities Sustainable Development Awards program reduced Scope 1 & 2 greenhouse gas emissions by 5,000 metric tonnes. Any divestitures that occurred during fiscal year 2016 resulted in a baseline adjustment in accordance with Divestment 0 No change the World Resources Institute Corporate Greenhouse Gas Accounting Standard and therefore did not influence any change in Conagra Brands' absolute greenhouse gas emissions Any acquisitions that occurred during fiscal year 2016 resulted in a baseline adjustment in accordance with Acquisitions 0 No change the World Resources Institute Corporate Greenhouse Gas Accounting Standard and therefore did not influence any change in absolute greenhouse gas emissions. No mergers occurred during fiscal year 2016; therefore, mergers did not influence any change in absolute Mergers 0 No change greenhouse gas emissions. Conagra Brands produced 3.28% percent less product by weight in fiscal year 2016 compared to fiscal year 2015. Generally, decreases in production result in decreased electricity and natural gas use, which decreases absolute Scope 1 & 2 greenhouse gas emissions. However, because the greenhouse gas Change in output Decrease emissions per pound of production varies significantly across different product types across our portfolio, Conagra Brands is not able to calculate the incremental decrease in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from change in output. Change in No notable changes in methodology occurred during fiscal year 2016; therefore, changes in methodology 0 No change methodology did not influence any change in absolute greenhouse gas emissions. Change in No notable changes in Conagra Brands' reporting boundary occurred during fiscal year 2016; therefore, 0 No change boundary changes in reporting boundary did not influence any change in absolute greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions Direction Reason value Please explain and include calculation of change (percentage)

Change in physical No notable changes in Conagra Brands' physical operating conditions occurred during fiscal year 2015; operating 0 No change therefore, changes in physical operating conditions did not influence any change in absolute greenhouse conditions Unidentified Other

CC12.1b

Is your emissions performance calculations in CC12.1 and CC12.1a based on a location-based Scope 2 emissions figure or a market-based Scope 2 emissions figure?

Location-based

CC12.2

Please describe your gross global combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions for the reporting year in metric tonnes CO2e per unit currency total revenue

Metric Direction Metric % denominator: of numerator (Gross change Intensity Unit total change global combined Scope 2 from Reason for change figure = revenue from Scope 1 and 2 figure previous previous emissions) used year year

metric tonnes Location- Conagra Brands 2020 Sustainability Vision targets a reduction in 0.0000704 11642900000 9 Increase CO2e based greenhouse gas emissions per pound of production, rather than per Metric Direction Metric % denominator: of numerator (Gross change Intensity Unit total change global combined Scope 2 from Reason for change figure = revenue from Scope 1 and 2 figure previous previous emissions) used year year

dollar of revenue, as we do not feel this is a representative measure of our operational footprint. We feel production is the most appropriate measure for normalizing quantitative data for several reasons: (1) production, meaning the amount of food Conagra Brands makes in our facilities, is directly correlated to the energy and water we use; (2) revenues, while linked to production, are also affected by contract manufacturing (i.e. production occurring outside of our own facilities); (3) revenue may be affected by increases/decreases in pricing, without changing the volume of food produced; and (4) reported revenues are influenced by financial/equity control in other businesses, while greenhouse gas emissions are reported based on operational control. Conagra Brands believes that production is most directly linked to our resource consumption and environmental footprint.

CC12.3

Please provide any additional intensity (normalized) metrics that are appropriate to your business operations

Metric Direction % change numerator (Gross of change Intensity Metric from global combined Metric Scope 2 from Reason for change figure = denominator previous Scope 1 and 2 denominator: figure previous year emissions) Unit total used year

Despite efforts to improve energy efficiency and metric tonnes unit of Location- 0.256 3196873 0.88 Increase reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our facilities, CO2e production based Conagra Brands faced market-driven declines in Metric Direction % change numerator (Gross of change Intensity Metric from global combined Metric Scope 2 from Reason for change figure = denominator previous Scope 1 and 2 denominator: figure previous year emissions) Unit total used year

production volume, resulting in an increase in GHG emissions per pound compared to the previous year.

Further Information

Page: CC13. Emissions Trading

CC13.1

Do you participate in any emissions trading schemes?

Yes

CC13.1a

Please complete the following table for each of the emission trading schemes in which you participate

Verified Period for which data is Allowances Allowances emissions in Scheme name Details of ownership supplied allocated purchased metric tonnes

CO2e

Fri 01 Jan 2016 - Sat 31 California’s Greenhouse Gas Cap and Facilities we own and Dec 2016 41115 0 69786 Trade Program operate

CC13.1b

What is your strategy for complying with the schemes in which you participate or anticipate participating?

Historically, Conagra Brands had two locations in California that had emissions above the California Cap and Trade 25,000 metric tonne threshold. One of the two facilities closed production following the close of fiscal year 2016. As such, that facility did not reach the 25,000 metric tonne threshold. In fiscal year 2016, only one facility is currently subject to cap and trade coverage. The emissions reported above have been electronically reported to the US EPA and the California Air Resources Board, internal sustainability reporting database, a system that is verified as part of our annual third-party assurance process. Conagra Brands strategy for complying with California's Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program is compliance-driven. We purchased 44,000 metric tons of allowances in the first California Cap and Trade Program Greenhouse Gas Allowance Auction held in November 2012. This purchase was sufficient to cover the requirements of the facilities we own and operate through Compliance Period 1 (CP1), which covered total 2013 and 2014 emissions. The program is set up in a way that you only have to surrender a small percentage of emissions each year (30%) and then at the end of a CP you need to have a balance that allows you to surrender all owed. The CPs are broken as follows : CP1 – 2013 and 2014; CP2 – 2015, 2016, 2017; CP3 – 2018, 2019, 2020. In November 2015 Conagra Brands had to surrender the balance of 2013 emissions as well as the total of 2014 emissions. In November 2016 Conagra Brands surrendered 30% of total 2015 emissions or 32,368 allowances. The California Air Resources Board has recently granted additional assistance through Compliance Period 2 and is evaluating assistance for Compliance Period 3. Conagra Brands regularly monitors greenhouse gas emissions of the facility we own and operate in California to evaluate the need to participate in allowance auctions and investigate offset opportunities to cover the gap between facility emissions and allowance allocated. In fact, we are planning to participate in the next auction being held, which is August 2017 and we have recently engaged a third-party expert to assist in developing our future strategy with respect to our Cap and Trade Program.

CC13.2

Has your organization originated any project-based carbon credits or purchased any within the reporting period?

No

CC13.2a

Please provide details on the project-based carbon credits originated or purchased by your organization in the reporting period

Credit Number of Number of credits origination Project Project Verified to which credits (metric tonnes Credits Purpose, e.g. or credit type identification standard (metric CO2e): Risk adjusted canceled compliance purchase tonnes CO2e) volume

Further Information

Page: CC14. Scope 3 Emissions

CC14.1

Please account for your organization’s Scope 3 emissions, disclosing and explaining any exclusions

Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

Conagra Brands has not quantified the greenhouse gas emissions Purchased Relevant, associated goods and not yet with the services calculated extraction, production, and transportation of purchased goods and services Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

Conagra Brands' requires use of a variety of capital goods to make our products. Conagra Brands has not evaluated whether the greenhouse Capital Not gas emissions goods evaluated associated with the extraction, production, and transportation of purchased or acquired capital goods is a relevant Scope 3 emissions source. Fuel-and- Relevant, Conagra energy- not yet Brands has related calculated not quantified Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

activities (not the included in greenhouse Scope 1 or 2) gas emissions associated with the fuel and energy related activities not included within Scope 1 or 2. Fiscal year 2016 is the eighth year that Conagra Conagra Brands calculates GHG emissions resulting from contracted transportation, Brands including diesel trucks, intermodal, and rail. Our transportation reporting boundary quantified the includes finished product transport, as well as some raw product transport where greenhouse Conagra Brands is responsible for contracting transportation. Primary data used includes gas emissions Upstream mode of transportation, mileage, and volume of product transported. greenhouse gas associated transportatio Relevant, 30000 emissions are calculated using the EPA's Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory 100.00% with the n and calculated 0 Protocol Core Module Guidance Optional Emissions from Commuting, Business Travel, transportation distribution and Product Transport, May 2008 (available online at: and http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/resources/commute_travel_product.pdf) distribution of . The methodology and emission factors used have been verified by a third-party (see finished attached verification statement). products sold between our operations and warehouses and our Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

customers' locations or distribution centers. Reported emissions include those resulting from transportation managed and paid by Conagra Brands and not those associated with transportation managed by customers. Conagra Brands has not quantified the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the transportation and distribution of Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

purchased raw ingredients and packaging materials between our tier 1 suppliers and our own operations during fiscal year 2016. Since Conagra Brands does not directly contract for transportation at this stage of the value chain, primary data is difficult to obtain. Conagra Brands calculates greenhouse gas emissions associated with sending waste to Fiscal year landfill and avoided greenhouse gas emissions associated with various waste diversion 2016 marked and reduction strategies using the United states Environmental Protection Agency’s the fifth year Waste Not Waste Reduction Model (WARM) Tool version 14, created to help organizations track and that Conagra generated in relevant, 19000 voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions. Conagra Brands categorizes solid waste 100.00% Brands operations calculated generated from our facilities into the following WARM Tool categories and applies the quantified the respective GHG emissions factors or avoided GHG emissions factor: aluminum (-9.11 greenhouse metric tons CO2e per ton recycled), corrugated cardboard (-3.12 metric tons CO2e per gas emissions ton recycled), food oil/grease (-0.06 metric tons CO2e per ton diverted), food scraps (10% associated Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

loss rate, -0.43 metric tons CO2e per ton composted and -0.06 metric tons CO2e per ton with disposal of material anaerobically digested), landfill (0.35 metric tons CO2e per ton landfilled), and treatment mixed metals (-4.34 metric tons CO2e per ton recycled), mixed paper (-3.53 metric tons of waste CO2e per ton recycled), mixed plastics (-1.02 metric tons CO2e per ton recycled), mixed generated in recyclables (-2.82 metric tons CO2e per ton recycled), waste to energy (-0.07 metric tons our CO2e per ton), wastewater sludge (-0.06 metric tons CO2e per ton diverted), and wood (- operations. 2.46 metric tons CO2e per ton diverted). Additional information regarding the EPA's Calculated WARM model is available online at: https://www.epa.gov/warm. emissions are less than 3 percent of Conagra Brands Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Fiscal year 2012 was the last year that Conagra Brands Conagra Brands has previously calculated business travel GHG emissions using actual quantified the Not rental car miles driven and air miles flown under corporate contracts centrally managed greenhouse Business relevant, by a third-party travel agency. Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using the gas emissions travel explanatio EPA's Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Core Module Guidance associated n provided Optional Emissions from Commuting, Business Travel, and Product Transport, May 2008. with transportation of employees for business related travel. Each year Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

emissions were less than 20,000 metric tons including our Lamb Weston business, or 2.4 percent of Conagra Brands Scope 1 and 2 emissions excluding Lamb Weston. Typically for manufacturing -based companies, the greenhouse Not gas emissions Employee relevant, associated commuting explanatio with n provided employees commuting between home and worksites is not a relevant Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

emissions source. Conagra Brands did not operate any notable leased assets that were not reported as part of our Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions; Not therefore, the Upstream relevant, greenhouse leased explanatio gas emissions assets n provided associated with the operation of upstream leased assets was not a relevant Scope 3 emissions source during fiscal year 2016. Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

Conagra Brands has not quantified transportation and distribution of products sold by the reporting company Downstream Relevant, between our transportatio not yet operations and n and calculated the end distribution consumer. Since this transportation is paid and managed by our end consumer, primary data is difficult to obtain. As a food Not company, Processing of relevant, Conagra sold products explanatio Brands does n provided not sell a significant Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

amount of products that require further processing by downstream companies; therefore, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the processing of intermediate products sold by downstream companies was not a relevant Scope 3 emissions source during fiscal year 2016. As a food company, Use of sold Not many of products evaluated Conagra Brands' Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

products require refrigeration, freezing, and cooking, all of which require energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Conagra Brands has not evaluated whether use of sold products is a relevant Scope 3 emissions source. As a food company, possible waste End of life streams Not treatment of associated evaluated sold products with Conagra Brands' products include Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

uneaten food and used packaging materials. Because we do not have visibility to consumer behaviors, primary data is difficult to obtain. Therefore, Conagra Brands has not evaluated whether the end of life treatment of sold products is a relevant Scope 3 emissions source. We have, however, taken steps to influence consumer behaviour Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

related to used packaging by incorporating the How2Recycle icons on many of of packaged foods to encourage recycling habits. We also strive to optimized packaging designs to help minimize the incidents of uneaten foods in home – through single serve, reclose features, barrier propoerties for longer shelf life, etc. Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

Conagra Brands did not lease any assets to third parties; therefore, the greenhouse gas emissions Not associated Downstream relevant, with the leased explanatio operation of assets n provided downstream leased assets was not a relevant Scope 3 emissions source during fiscal year 2016. Conagra Brands is not involved in any Not franchise relevant, Franchises operations; explanatio therefore, the n provided greenhouse gas emissions associated Percentag e of emissions calculated Sources of metric using data Scope 3 tonnes Emissions calculation methodology Evaluation obtained emissions CO2e Explanation status from

suppliers

or value

chain partners

with the operation of franchises was not a relevant Scope 3 emissions source during fiscal year 2016. Conagra Relevant, Brands has Investments not yet investments in calculated several joint ventures. Other (upstream) Other (downstream )

CC14.2

Please indicate the verification/assurance status that applies to your reported Scope 3 emissions

Third party verification or assurance process in place

CC14.2a

Please provide further details of the verification/assurance undertaken, and attach the relevant statements

Type of Verification Status in verification Relevant Proportion of Attach the statement or assurance the current or Page/Section standard reported Scope

cycle in reporting assurance reference 3 emissions

place year verified (%)

https://www.cdp.net/sites/2017/32/3732/Climate Change Annual Limited ISO14064- Complete 2017/Shared Documents/Attachments/CC14.2a/Conagra GHG All 100 process assurance 3 emissions Verification Statement.pdf

CC14.3

Are you able to compare your Scope 3 emissions for the reporting year with those for the previous year for any sources?

Yes

CC14.3a

Please identify the reasons for any change in your Scope 3 emissions and for each of them specify how your emissions compare to the previous year

Sources of Reason Emissions Direction Scope 3 for value of Comment emissions change (percentage) change

The main reason for the decrease in Scope 3 transportation emissions is due the spin off the Lamb Weston Holding, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates (including joint ventures) by Conagra Brands (then known as ConAgra Foods, Inc.) on November 9, 2016. Because Lamb Upstream Weston is no longer part of Conagra Brands, Lamb Weston data is not included in this transportation & Divestment 46 Decrease questionnaire. Conagra Brands is also continuously improving pallet efficiency by optimizing distribution package size and orientation to fit the most products on each shipment. Available modes of transportation are also evaluated to determine the most efficient method. Contracted carriers are continually upgrading their fleets to improve efficiency, including trucks equipped with battery- powered auxiliary systems and aerodynamic fairings.

CC14.4

Do you engage with any of the elements of your value chain on GHG emissions and climate change strategies? (Tick all that apply)

Yes, our suppliers Yes, our customers

CC14.4a

Please give details of methods of engagement, your strategy for prioritizing engagements and measures of success

Our strategy for engaging with suppliers and customers is simple: we identify those opportunities with the most potential for meaningful collaboration and impact to our industry. These opportunities require us to have shared priorities and should deliver mutual value to both Conagra Brands and our customers/suppliers. Measures of success are specific to each engagement, but include both environmental impacts and benefit to the business (economic, risk reduction).

Supplier Engagement Conagra Brands maintains active "top-to-top" relationships with strategic suppliers, representing substantial proportion of our spend. Typically twice annually during meetings between senior leadership from each company, sustainability strategy and goals are shared, providing the opportunity to explore collaborative solutions. Conagra Brands also directly engages with contracted tomato and popcorn growers to discuss integration of sustainable agriculture practices. It is also common practice to include sustainability parameters in direct bidding of contracts and in evaluation of potential new suppliers, adding those considerations into the decision- making process. Direct suppliers are also bound by the Conagra Brands Supplier Code of Conduct which contains minimum standards for doing business with us. In 2016, Conagra launched a new Supplier Excellence program aimed at developing more intentional and objective interactions with our supplier network. The program employs a scorecard methodology that includes sustainability attributes. The measures on the scorecard are intended to evolve over time to continually evolve and adapt our supplier base to our business needs.

Customer Engagement We actively engage with our customers in three ways: 1. Direct engagement. Conagra Brands actively collaborates with key customers and provides resources, consultation, advice and reporting as needed. For example, company representatives actively engaged with McDonald’s, serving on their Supply Chain Sustainability Council since its inception in 2009 and contributing to various sub-committees of that council. 2. Collaboration through industry associations. Conagra Brands participates on many cross-functional trade associations, working groups, and other sustainability initiatives with our peers and customers. For example, Conagra Brands serves as the co-chair of the Food Waste Reduction Alliance, a project jointly sponsored by GMA, FMI and the National Restaurant Association. 3. Information sharing. Conagra Brands routinely completes scorecards and information requests in support of customer supply chain sustainability programs.

CC14.4b

To give a sense of scale of this engagement, please give the number of suppliers with whom you are engaging and the proportion of your total spend that they represent

% of total Type of Number of spend Impact of engagement engagement suppliers (direct and

indirect)

In 2016, Conagra Brands launched a new Supplier Excellence Program that put a process in place to more broadly measure supplier performance on a more diverse set of criteria, including social and environmental Other: Supplier 100 80% metrics. This program addresses >80% of the company’s spend on ingredients and packaging. Suppliers are Assessment scored by a cross-functional team on a quarterly basis and receive regular feedback. In 2017, we are updating the metrics around sustainability to be more quantifiable and with a strong bias towards transparency.

CC14.4c

Please explain why you do not engage with any elements of your value chain on GHG emissions and climate change strategies, and any plans you have to develop an engagement strategy in the future

Further Information

Module: Sign Off

Page: CC15. Sign Off

CC15.1

Please provide the following information for the person that has signed off (approved) your CDP climate change response

Name Job title Corresponding job category

Dave Biegger Executive Vice President & Chief Supply Chain Officer Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Further Information

Module: FBT

Page: FBT1. Agriculture

FBT1.1

Are agricultural activities, whether in your direct operations or elsewhere in your value chain, relevant to your climate change disclosure?

FBT1.1a

Please explain why agricultural activities are not relevant to your climate change disclosure

FBT1.2

Are the agricultural activities that you have identified as relevant undertaken on your own farm(s), elsewhere in your value chain, or both?

FBT1.2a

Please explain why agricultural emissions from your own farms are not relevant

FBT1.3

Do you account for greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activities undertaken on your own farm(s) as part of the global gross Scope 1 emissions figure reported in CC8.2, and/or the Scope 2 figure reported in CC8.3a of the core climate change questionnaire?

FBT1.3a

Please select the form(s) in which you wish to report the greenhouse gas emissions produced by agricultural activities (agricultural emissions) undertaken on your own farm(s)

FBT1.3b

Please report your total agricultural emissions produced on your own farm(s) and identify any exclusions in the table below

Agricultural Scope emissions (metric Methodology Exclusions Explanation Comment tonnes CO2e)

FBT1.3c Please report your agricultural emissions produced on your own farm(s), disaggregated by category, and identify any exclusions in the table below

Agricultural Emissions emissions (metric Methodology Exclusions Explanation Comment category tonnes CO2e)

FBT1.3d

Please explain why you do not account for greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activities undertaken on your own farm(s), and describe any plans for the collection of this data in the future

FBT1.4

Do you implement agricultural management practices on your own farm(s) with a climate change mitigation and/or adaptation benefit?

FBT1.4a

Please identify agricultural management practices undertaken on your own farm(s) with a climate change mitigation and/or adaptation benefit. Complete the table

Agricultural Description of agricultural Climate change Activity ID Comment management practice management practice related benefit

FBT1.4b

Does your implementation of these agricultural management practices have other impacts? Complete the table

Impact on Impact on Description Activity ID Impact on yield Impact on cost Impact on water Other impact Comment soil quality biodiversity of impacts

FBT1.4c

Do you have any plans to implement agricultural management practices in the future?

FBT1.4d

Please detail your plans to implement agricultural management practices in the future

FBT1.5

Is biogenic carbon pertaining to your own farm(s) relevant to your climate change disclosure?

FBT1.5a

Please report biogenic carbon data pertaining to your own farm(s) in the table below

Emissions/ CO2 flux Removals (metric Methodology Exclusions Explanation Comment tonnes CO2e)

FBT1.6 Do you account for greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activities in your value chain as part of the Scope 3 category "Purchased goods and services" reported in CC14.1 of the core climate change questionnaire?

FBT1.6a

Please report these agricultural emissions from your value chain and identify any exclusions in the table below

Agricultural emissions (% of

the emissions reported in the Scope Exclusions Explanation Comment category “Purchased goods

and services”)

FBT1.6b

Please explain why you do not account for greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activities in your value chain as part of the Scope 3 category “Purchased goods and services” reported in CC14.1 of the core climate change questionnaire

FBT1.7

Do you encourage your agricultural suppliers to undertake any agricultural management practices with a climate change mitigation and/or adaptation benefit?

FBT1.7a

Please identify agricultural management practices with a climate change mitigation and/or adaptation benefit that you encourage your suppliers to implement. Complete the table

Agricultural Description of Your role in the Explanation of how Activity ID management agricultural implementation of you encourage Climate change related benefit Comment practice management practice this practice implementation

FBT1.7b

Does the implementation of these agricultural management practices in your value chain have other impacts? Complete the table

Impact on Impact on Description Activity ID Impact on yield Impact on cost Impact on water Other impact Comment soil quality biodiversity of impacts

FBT1.7c

Do you have any plans to engage with your suppliers on their implementation of agricultural management practices?

FBT1.7d

Please detail these plans to engage with your suppliers on their implementation of agricultural management practices

Further Information

Page: FBT2. Processing

FBT2.1

Are processing activities, whether in your direct operations or elsewhere in your value chain, relevant to your climate change disclosure?

FBT2.1a

Please explain why processing activities are not relevant to your climate change disclosure

FBT2.2

Are the processing activities that you have identified as relevant undertaken in your direct operations, elsewhere in your value chain, or both?

FBT2.2a

Please explain why emissions from processing activities in your direct operations are not relevant

FBT2.3

Do you account for emissions from processing activities in your direct operations as part of the global gross Scope 1 emissions figure reported in CC8.2 and/or the Scope 2 figure reported in CC8.3a of the core climate change questionnaire?

FBT2.3a

Please report these emissions from processing activities in your direct operations and identify any exclusions in the table below

Emissions from Scope processing activities Exclusions Explanation Comment (metric tonnes CO2e)

FBT2.3b

Please explain why you do not account for emissions from processing activities in your direct operations, and describe any plans for the collection of this data in the future

FBT2.4

Do you account for emissions from processing activities in your value chain as part of the Scope 3 category "Purchased goods and services" and/or "Processing of sold products" reported in CC14.1 of the core climate change questionnaire?

Further Information

Page: FBT3. Distribution

FBT3.1

Are distribution activities, whether in your direct operations or elsewhere in your value chain, relevant to your climate change disclosure?

FBT3.1a

Please explain why distribution activities are not relevant to your climate change disclosure

FBT3.2

Are the distribution activities that you have identified as relevant undertaken in your direct operations, elsewhere in your value chain, or both?

FBT3.2a

Please explain why emissions from distribution activities in your direct operations are not relevant

FBT3.3

Do you account for emissions from distribution activities in your direct operations as part of the global gross Scope 1 emissions figure reported in CC8.2 and/or the Scope 2 figure reported in CC8.3a of the core climate change questionnaire?

FBT3.3a

Please report these emissions from distribution activities in your direct operations and identify any exclusions in the table below

Emissions from Scope distribution activities Exclusions Explanation Comment (metric tonnes CO2e)

FBT3.3b

Please explain why you do not account for emissions from distribution activities in your direct operations, and describe any plans for the collection of this data in the future

FBT3.4

Do you account for emissions from distribution activities in your value chain as part of the Scope 3 category "Upstream transportation and distribution" and/or "Downstream transportation and distribution" in CC14.1 of the core climate change questionnaire?

Further Information Page: FBT4. Consumption

FBT4.1

Are emissions from the consumption of your products relevant to your climate change disclosure?

FBT4.1b

Please explain why emissions from the consumption of your products are not relevant to your climate change disclosure

FBT4.1a

Do you account for emissions from the consumption of your products as part of the Scope 3 category "Use of sold products" and/or "End of life treatment of sold products" in CC14.1 of the core climate change questionnaire?

Further Information

CDP 2017 Climate Change 2017 Information Request