HAS DEF 14A Report ended May 19, 2016

Table of Contents

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

PROXY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(a) OF THE SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (AMENDMENT NO.                       )

Filed By The Registrant x

Filed By A Party Other Than The Registrant ¨

Check the appropriate box:

HASBRO, INC.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

Payment Of Filing Fee (Check The Appropriate Box):

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Dear Fellow Shareholders,

Please join Hasbro’s Board of Directors, members of our senior management team and your fellow shareholders at Hasbro’s 2016 Annual Meeting. The meeting will be held at our headquarters in Pawtucket, Rhode Island on Thursday, May 19 at 11:00 AM Eastern Time.

The attached Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders and Proxy Statement provide you with information regarding the business to be conducted at the Meeting and other important matters regarding our Company. Our goal in the following document is to articulate simply and thoroughly the details you’ll need to make informed voting decisions. Your vote is important, so please vote – either online, by phone or by mail with the enclosed proxy or voting information card.

2015 was a record year for Hasbro. The Company delivered record revenues and earnings despite a significant impact from foreign exchange. The execution of our long-term strategy is delivering strong results, illustrated by our Brand Blueprint to build global brand franchises. We first established this strategy approximately ten years ago, and our continued investment in the capabilities to execute against it is enabling Hasbro to connect more deeply with consumers on a global basis. The successful execution of this strategy is beginning to unlock the full economic value in our brands and providing a multi-year road map from which the Company is operating.

Hasbro’s Board of Directors plays a fundamental role in establishing and ensuring the success of this strategy. Through collaboration and strategic oversight we are facilitating the decision making of Hasbro’s senior management team. We are dedicated to attracting, retaining and developing the top talent in the industry with a thoughtful and disciplined approach to compensation, recruitment and succession planning at the highest levels. This is true both for senior management as well as the Board. Our Board today represents a group of industry leading experts with diverse experiences and industry backgrounds. In early 2016, Sir Crispin Davis joined our Board as an independent director. Crispin’s proven leadership and exceptional track record of successfully transforming a company while managing challenging global issues will be an invaluable asset to Hasbro’s Board.

Hasbro’s Board of Directors is committed to you, our shareholders, and furthering your interests. We value the input we receive from shareholders, including as part of our ongoing outreach programs, and our corporate strategy is focused on delivering long-term shareholder value. Part of that commitment involves utilizing best in class governance principles. In 2015, we established the role of Lead Independent Director with enhanced duties and responsibilities beyond the previous Presiding Director role. In addition, in response to the affirmative vote of our shareholders on a 2015 proxy access proposal, and feedback during our ongoing dialogue with shareholders, in October the Board adopted a Proxy Access bylaw amendment. We encourage you to read more about the bylaw amendment in the attached Proxy Statement.

In addition to discussing Proxy Access, since last May’s Annual Meeting we have continued the dialogue with shareholders on important issues including compensation, corporate social responsibility and governance.

On behalf of Hasbro’s Board of Directors, management team and all of our employees we thank you for your ongoing support of Hasbro and look forward to continuing our dialogue over the years to come.

		Brian D. Goldner Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hasbro Inc.				Basil L. Anderson Lead Independent Director, Hasbro’s Board of Directors

Table of Contents

HASBRO, INC.

NOTICE OF 2016 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

By Order of the Board of Directors

Barbara Finigan

Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary

Dated: April 4, 2016

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE PROXY MATERIALS AND THE ANNUAL MEETING

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS (Proposal No. 1)

Twelve directors are to be elected at the Meeting. All of the directors elected at the Meeting will serve until the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “2017 Meeting”), and until their successors are duly elected and qualified, or until their earlier death, resignation or removal.

The Board has recommended as nominees for election as directors, to serve until the 2017 Meeting, the persons named below. All of the nominees are currently directors of the Company. The proxies cannot be voted for more than twelve directors at the Meeting.

Unless otherwise specified in your voting instructions, the shares voted pursuant thereto will be cast for the persons named below as nominees for election as directors. If, for any reason, any of the nominees named below should be unable to serve as a director, it is intended that such proxy will be voted for the election, in his or her place, of a substituted nominee who would be recommended by the Board. The Board, however, has no reason to believe that any nominee named below will be unable to serve as a director.

In considering candidates for election to the Board, the Board, the Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee of the Board, and the Company consider a number of factors, including employment and other experience, qualifications, attributes, skills, expertise and involvement in areas that are of importance to the Company’s business, business ethics and professional reputation, other Board service, business, financial and strategic judgment, and the desire to have a Board that represents a diverse mix of backgrounds, perspectives and expertise. Each of the nominees for election to the Board at the meeting has served in senior positions at complex organizations and has demonstrated a successful track record of strategic, business and financial planning, execution and operating skills in these positions. In addition, each of the nominees for election to the Board has proven experience in management and leadership development and an understanding of operating and corporate governance issues for a large multinational company.

The following information set forth below as to each director nominee includes: (i) his or her age; (ii) all positions and offices with the Company; (iii) principal occupation or employment during the past five years; (iv) current directorships of publicly-held companies or investment companies; (v) other previous directorships of publicly-held companies or investment companies during the past five years; (vi) period of service as a director of the Company; and (vii) particular experience, qualifications, attributes or skills, which led the Company’s Board to conclude that the nominee should serve as a director of the Company. Except as otherwise indicated, each person has had the same principal occupation or employment during the past five years.

Nominees for Election as Directors

		Basil L. Anderson Age: 70 Basil L. Anderson served as Vice Chairman of Staples, Inc. (office supply company) from September 2001 until March 2006. Prior thereto, he was Executive Vice President — Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Campbell Soup Company (consumer products company) since 1996. Mr. Anderson also previously served as Chief Financial Officer of Scott Paper Company from 1993 to 1996. Mr. Anderson is a director of Becton, Dickinson and Company, Moody’s Corporation and Staples, Inc. Mr. Anderson has been a director of the Company since 2002.
The Board has nominated Mr. Anderson for election as a director because of his more than 30 years of business experience, including years of experience as an operating executive, a financial executive, a chief financial officer and as a board member of major multinational public companies. In the Board’s view Mr. Anderson possesses strategic planning, business, financial planning and operations expertise, including with respect to consumer products companies; corporate finance expertise; knowledge, expertise and perspective regarding financial reporting and accounting issues for complex multinational public companies; experience from service on four public company audit committees; experience from service on public company compensation, finance, and governance committees; expertise in corporate governance and board and committee best practices; and international business expertise.

Table of Contents

		Alan R. Batkin Age: 71 Alan R. Batkin is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Converse Associates, Inc. (a strategic advisory firm). From 2007 to 2012, he was the Vice Chairman of Eton Park Capital Management, L.P. (global, multi-disciplinary investment firm). Prior thereto, he was the Vice Chairman of Kissinger Associates, Inc. (strategic consulting firm) from 1990 until 2006. He is a director of Cantel Medical Corp., Pattern Energy Group, Inc. and Omnicom Group, Inc. Mr. Batkin served on the Board of Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. from 1999 to 2012. Mr. Batkin has been a director of the Company since 1992.
The Board has nominated Mr. Batkin for election as a director because of his more than 40 years of business experience and financial expertise spanning his work in public accounting as a CPA, investment banking and international strategic consulting. Mr. Batkin has extensive experience advising multinational companies on global business and political issues, and he has served as a director for numerous public companies. The Board believes Mr. Batkin possesses expertise in corporate finance and asset management; expertise in strategic and financial planning and international business operations; knowledge, expertise and perspective regarding financial reporting and accounting matters for multinational public companies; experience from service on multiple public company boards and committees, including a number of public company audit committees; and expertise in corporate governance and board and committee best practices.

		Kenneth A. Bronfin Age: 56 Kenneth A. Bronfin is Senior Managing Director of Hearst Ventures (the strategic investment arm of diversified media company Hearst Corporation), serving in this role since 2013. Prior thereto, he was President of Hearst Interactive Media since 2002. Prior thereto, he was Deputy Group Head of Hearst Interactive Media since 1996. Mr. Bronfin has been a director of the Company since 2008. The Board has nominated Mr. Bronfin for election as a director because of his extensive expertise and experience
in operational and executive roles in the media and digital services sectors. Mr. Bronfin’s experience includes serving in a number of executive positions where he was in charge of leading interactive media and digital businesses and where he led new business ventures, strategic investments and acquisitions in the digital content and media sectors. Mr. Bronfin also has experience serving on a number of private and public company boards of directors. The Board believes Mr. Bronfin possesses knowledge, expertise and experience, including operations and business planning experience, in the media, digital products and digital services industries, including business experience in international media; advertising and marketing expertise, including in analyzing and anticipating consumer trends in media and digital technologies and businesses; as well as expertise in strategic planning and corporate finance.

		Michael R. Burns Age: 57 Michael R. Burns is the Vice Chairman and a member of the Board of directors of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., serving in this role since 2000. From 1991 to 2000, he was the Managing Director and Head of the Los Angeles Investment Banking Office of Prudential Securities Inc. Mr. Burns has been a director of the Company since 2014. The Board has nominated Mr. Burns for election as a director because of his extensive knowledge and experience in content development and brand building, including in the use of creative storytelling across platforms global
entertainment franchises; in the entertainment industries, including operating and financial expertise in to build motion picture development, financing, marketing and monetization; expertise in strategic planning for, investing in and building content and entertainment-driven multi-platform businesses; experience in global media distribution; expertise in investment banking and corporate finance; and expertise in international business.

		Sir Crispin H. Davis Age: 66 Sir Crispin H. Davis served as the Chief Executive Officer of Reed Elsevier, PLC (a leading provider of scientific, legal and business publishing) from 1999 to 2009. From 1994 to 1999 he was the Chief Executive Officer of Aegis Group, PLC (media and digital marketing communications company). He is a director of Vodaphone Group, PLC and served on the Board of Glaxo Smith Kline, PLC from 2003 to 2013. Sir Davis has been a director of the Company since February 2016.
The Board appointed Sir Davis as a director in February 2016 and has nominated Sir Davis for re-election as a director because of his experience in transforming a print-based publishing company into a leading online information provider, international business expertise, proven leadership in driving the growth of large multinational corporations, expertise in brand building, organizational development and global marketing, background in media and digital marketing, and knowledge of corporate governance and board best practices.

Table of Contents

		Lisa Gersh Age: 57 Lisa Gersh is the Chief Executive Officer of Goop, Inc. (lifestyle publication curated by Gwyneth Paltrow) serving in her role since October 2014. Ms. Gersh served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (integrated media and merchandising company) from 2012 to 2013. Prior thereto, she served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. from 2011 to 2012. She served as President, Strategic Initiatives at NBC News, an operating subsidiary of NBC Universal (media company) from 2007 until January 2011. Ms. Gersh served as a director of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
from 2011 to 2013. Ms. Gersh was the founder and President of Oxygen Media from 1998 until 2007. Ms. Gersh has been a director of the Company since 2010. The Board has nominated Ms. Gersh for election as a director because of her extensive experience in the media, branded products and entertainment industries, including television, digital entertainment and publishing. These roles involved operating and executive positions with multiple leading media and brand-driven companies, including as Chief Executive Officer of Goop, Inc., President and Chief Executive Officer of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia and her role in leading NBC Universal’s acquisition of the Weather Channel companies as the executive in charge of the investment. The Board believes Ms. Gersh possesses knowledge, expertise and perspectives, including business and strategic planning expertise, regarding media, brand-driven and entertainment industries, including the cable television and digital industries; marketing and branding expertise; and expertise in media trends and in building global brand-driven businesses.

		Brian D. Goldner Age: 52 Brian D. Goldner has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Hasbro, Inc. since 2008, and additionally has served as the Chairman of the Board since May 2015. Prior thereto, Mr. Goldner served as the Chief Operating Officer of Hasbro from 2006 to 2008 and as President, U.S. Toys Segment from 2003 to 2006. Prior to joining Hasbro in 2000, Mr. Goldner held a number of management positions in the family entertainment and advertising industries, including as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Bandai America,
Worldwide Director in charge of the Los Angeles Office of J. Walter Thompson and as a Vice President and Account Director of Leo Burnett Advertising. Mr. Goldner serves on the Board of Molson Coors Brewing Company. Mr. Goldner has been a director of the Company since 2008. The Board has nominated Mr. Goldner for election as a director because of the fundamental role he has played and continues to play in the transformation of Hasbro’s business globally and in successfully formulating and executing the Company’s strategy, including its expansion into new geographies and new categories, and its use of consumer insights, content creation and immersive storytelling to build global brands. Mr. Goldner has extensive experience and expertise in branded-products and entertainment industries and expertise in marketing, brand development, storytelling and brand building. Mr. Goldner is the chief architect of the Company’s brand blueprint and has led the Company’s transformation from a traditional toy and game manufacturer into a global organization dedicated to Creating the World’s Best Play Experiences. Since 2000, under Mr. Goldner’s leadership, the Company has conceptualized and implemented its brand blueprint, imagining and re-imagining core Hasbro brands globally, identifying Hasbro’s Franchise Brands and developing new ways to express Hasbro’s brands through entertainment, digital media and lifestyle licensing. Mr. Goldner has been a key driver behind the Company’s use of immersive brand-driven entertainment experiences, including motion pictures and television based on the Company’s brands, to develop brand recognition and build the Company’s business. The Board believes Mr. Goldner possesses knowledge, expertise and experience regarding strategic and operational planning and execution in global brand and content-driven entertainment industries, including in delivering immersive branded-play offerings and in using story-telling to build global consumer franchises; expertise in global branded-entertainment industry trends and challenges; expertise in the media and entertainment industries; and expertise in marketing, product and brand development and delivery in the entertainment and consumer products spaces. Mr. Goldner also serves as an officer and/or director of a number of the Company’s subsidiaries at the request and convenience of the Company.

Table of Contents

		Alan G. Hassenfeld Age: 67 Alan G. Hassenfeld served as Chairman of the Board of Hasbro, Inc. from 1989 to 2008. Prior to May 2003, Mr. Hassenfeld served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Hasbro since 1999. Prior thereto, he was Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Hasbro since 1989. Mr. Hassenfeld serves on the Board of salesforce.com, inc. and served on the Board of Global Cornerstone Holdings Ltd. from 2011 until 2013. Mr. Hassenfeld is also co-chairman of the Governing Body of the International Council of Toy Industries CARE Process. Mr. Hassenfeld has been a director of the Company since 1978.
The Board has nominated Mr. Hassenfeld for election as a director because of his more than 40 years of experience in the toy, game and family entertainment industry, including his extensive service in senior leadership roles at Hasbro, culminating in his service as the Company’s Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Throughout his career at Hasbro, Mr. Hassenfeld held a number of positions of increasing responsibility in marketing and sales for the Company’s domestic and international operations, including responsibilities overseeing global markets. He became Vice President of International Operations in 1972 and later served as Vice President of Marketing and Sales and then as Executive Vice President, prior to being named President of the Company in 1984 and President and Chief Executive Officer in 1989. The Board believes Mr. Hassenfeld possesses particular knowledge, expertise and experience regarding strategic and operational planning and execution in the toy, game and family entertainment industries; expertise in industry trends and challenges, global markets, and international business operations; expertise in issues of corporate social responsibility and sustainability; and experience and expertise in the competitive and financial positioning of the Company and its business.

		Tracy A. Leinbach Age: 56 Tracy A. Leinbach served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for Ryder System, Inc. (a global logistics and transportation and supply chain solutions provider) from 2003 until 2006. Prior thereto, Ms. Leinbach served as Executive Vice President, Fleet Management Solutions for Ryder since 2001. She is a director of Forward Air Corporation and Veritiv Corporation. Ms. Leinbach has been a director of the Company since 2008.
The Board has nominated Ms. Leinbach for election as a director because of her extensive business experience in global operations, strategic and financial planning, auditing and accounting. Ms. Leinbach held a number of positions involving increasing global operating and global financial management, responsibility and oversight, as well as global supply chain management, with Ryder, spanning a career with Ryder of over 21 years. During her career she lead the company’s largest business unit in the U.S., as well as units in Europe, Mexico and Canada. In addition to extensive operating experience, her time with Ryder included service as controller and chief financial officer at many of Ryder’s subsidiaries and divisions. Ms. Leinbach’s career with Ryder culminated in her service as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Prior to her career with Ryder, Ms. Leinbach worked for Price Waterhouse in public accounting and was a CPA. The Board believes Ms. Leinbach possesses particular knowledge, expertise and experience in strategic planning, management, operations, logistics and risk management for a large multinational company; corporate finance; sales; and expertise in issues regarding financial reporting and accounting issues for large public companies. The Board has determined that Ms. Leinbach qualifies as an Audit Committee Financial Expert due to her prior experience, including as the Chief Financial Officer of a public company (Ryder System, Inc.).

Table of Contents

		Edward M. Philip Age: 50 Edward M. Philip has served as the Chief Operating Officer of Partners in Health (a non-profit healthcare organization) since January 2013. In addition, Mr. Philip is a Special Partner at Highland Consumer Fund (consumer-oriented private equity fund), serving in this role since 2013. He served as Managing General Partner at Highland Consumer Fund from 2006 to 2013. Prior thereto, Mr. Philip served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Decision Matrix Group, Inc. (research and consulting firm) from May 2004 to November 2005. Prior thereto, he was Senior Vice President of Terra Networks, S.A. (global Internet company) from October 2000 to
January 2004. In 1995, Mr. Philip joined Lycos, Inc. (an Internet service provider and search company) as one of its founding members. During his time with Lycos, Mr. Philip held the positions of President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer at different times. Prior to joining Lycos, Mr. Philip spent time as Vice President of Finance for the Walt Disney Company, and prior thereto Mr. Philip spent a number of years in investment banking. He is a director of BRP Inc. Mr. Philip has been a director of the Company since 2002. The Board has nominated Mr. Philip for election as a director because of his more than 20 years of business and management experience, including many years of experience as both an operating executive and chief financial officer of multinational corporations, and his experience in strategic, business and financial planning in consumer-based and technology-based industries and in overseeing management teams of such companies, as well as in managing teams responding to complex and critical international issues. The Board believes Mr. Philip possesses knowledge, expertise and perspectives regarding internet and technology based industries and the use of the internet and digital media for building businesses; expertise in strategic planning and execution in complex global organizations; expertise in consumer trends and in the family entertainment industry; corporate finance, financial reporting and accounting matters for large multinational public companies; as well as expertise in the operation and management of a multinational corporation.

		Richard S. Stoddart Age: 53 Richard S. Stoddart is the Chief Executive Officer of Leo Burnett Worldwide, serving in this role since February 2016. He serviced as Chief Executive Officer of Leo Burnett North America from 2013 to 2016. Mr. Stoddart served as President of Leo Burnett North America from 2005 to 2013. Mr. Stoddart has been a director of the Company since 2014. The Board has nominated Mr. Stoddart for election as a director because of his extensive experience in the
advertising, marketing and communications industries, including in television, digital, social media and in print, and in building global brands and businesses. As the Chief Executive Officer of one of the largest advertising agencies, Mr. Stoddart is recognized for his leadership in the development and integration of shopper, digital, social and mobile capabilities as part of a company’s overall marketing and brand strategy. The Board believes Mr. Stoddart possesses knowledge, expertise and experience regarding branding and brand building, marketing strategy and marketing communications across media platforms, including in traditional advertising, digital advertising and social media; expertise in media planning, launching branded content and products; and expertise in media trends and strategic planning for businesses building global content-driven brands.

		Linda K. Zecher Age: 62 Linda K. Zecher is the President and Chief Executive Officer, and a member of the Board of directors, of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company, serving in those roles since 2011. Prior thereto, she was Corporate Vice President, Worldwide Public Sector of Microsoft Corporation from 2003 to 2011. Ms. Zecher has been a director of the Company since 2014. The Board has nominated Ms. Zecher for election as a director because of her extensive experience in leading the
transformation of businesses in the fields of digital publishing, digital learning, and online sales and marketing, as well as her expertise and skill in driving technological innovation and in leading content development and distribution across channels and platforms. The Board believes Ms. Zecher possesses knowledge, expertise and experience in unified analog and digital content development and distribution, in strategic planning and execution for businesses focused on global cross-platform content development and delivery, and expertise in digital brand building, online business development and in driving technological innovation.

Vote Required. Under the Company’s majority vote standard in order to be elected a director must receive a number of “For” votes that exceed the number of votes cast “Against” the election of the director. As such, an abstention is effectively a vote against a director. The Company’s majority vote standard and mandatory resignation policy are discussed in detail beginning on page 11 of this proxy statement.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF EACH OF THE TWELVE DIRECTOR NOMINEES NAMED ABOVE.

Table of Contents

GOVERNANCE OF THE COMPANY

Hasbro is committed to strong corporate governance, ethical conduct, sustainability and the accountability of our Board and our senior management team to the Company’s shareholders.

Code of Conduct

Hasbro has a Code of Conduct which is applicable to all of the Company’s officers, other employees and directors, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Controller. The Code of Conduct addresses such issues as conflicts of interest, protection of confidential Company information, financial integrity, compliance with laws, rules and regulations, insider trading and proper public disclosure. Compliance with the Code of Conduct is mandatory for all Company officers, other employees and directors. Any violation of the Code of Conduct can subject the person at issue to a range of sanctions, including dismissal.

The Code of Conduct is available on Hasbro’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investors — Corporate Governance.” Although the Company generally does not intend to provide waivers of, or amendments to, the Code of Conduct for its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Controller, or any other officers, directors or employees, information concerning any waiver of, or amendment to, the Code of Conduct for the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Controller, or any other executive officer or director of the Company, will be promptly disclosed on the Company’s website in the location where the Code of Conduct is posted.

Corporate Governance Principles

Hasbro has adopted a set of Corporate Governance Principles which address qualifications for members of the Board of Directors, director responsibilities, director access to management and independent advisors, director compensation and many other matters related to the governance of the Company. The Corporate Governance Principles are available on Hasbro’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investors — Corporate Governance.”

Director Independence

Hasbro’s Board has adopted Standards for Director Independence (the “Independence Standards”) in accordance with The NASDAQ Stock Market’s corporate governance listing standards. The Independence Standards specify criteria used by the Board in making determinations with respect to the independence of its members and include strict guidelines for directors and their immediate family members with respect to past employment or affiliation with the Company or its independent auditor. The Independence Standards are available on Hasbro’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investors — Corporate Governance.” A copy of the Independence Standards is also attached as Appendix A to this Proxy Statement.

The Independence Standards restrict commercial relationships between directors and the Company and include the consideration of other relationships with the Company, including charitable relationships, in making independence determinations. The Board has

Table of Contents

determined in accordance with our Independence Standards, that each of the following directors are independent and have no relationships which impact an independence determination under the Company’s Independence Standards: Basil L. Anderson, Alan R. Batkin, Kenneth A. Bronfin, Michael R. Burns, Sir Crispin H. Davis, Lisa Gersh, Alan G. Hassenfeld, Tracy A. Leinbach, Edward M. Philip, Richard S. Stoddart and Linda K. Zecher.

Alan G. Hassenfeld was formerly an employee and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. However, Mr. Hassenfeld’s officer and employee relationship with the Company ended in December of 2005. Although Mr. Hassenfeld has a greater than 5% shareholding in the Company, which is detailed in the stock ownership tables in this Proxy Statement, that interest is only a minority interest in the total share ownership of the Company. The Board does not believe that the former employment relationship or equity interest impact Mr. Hassenfeld’s independence.

The only member of the Company’s Board who was determined not to be independent was Brian D. Goldner, the Company’s current Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer.

Lead Independent Director

At the Company’s 2015 Annual Meeting, the role of Presiding Non-Management Director was replaced with an expanded role of Lead Independent Director. This reflected Hasbro’s continued commitment to good governance and to providing a strong voice for its independent directors. Basil Anderson serves in the role of Lead Independent Director. Mr. Anderson has served on the Board since 2002 and currently also serves as Chairman of the Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee.

The Lead Independent Director’s primary responsibilities include:

Board Leadership Structure

The Chairman of the Company’s Board is elected by the Board on an annual basis. Currently, Mr. Goldner serves as Chairman of the Board, as well as President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Goldner’s appointment as Chairman in May of 2015 reflected the integral role he has played and continues to play in the transformation of Hasbro’s business globally and in successfully formulating and executing the Company’s strategy, including its expansion into new geographies and new categories, both before and following his appointment as Chief Executive Officer in 2008. The Board believes that combining these roles at this time is best for the Company and its shareholders as it will facilitate the functioning of the Board with senior management in strategic planning for the Company and in determining the Company’s key business opportunities and objectives, and setting plans for achieving those objectives. Hasbro believes the combination of these roles with a proven leader positions the Company well for future success.

Table of Contents

The Chairman of the Board provides leadership to the Board by, among other things, working with the Lead Independent Director and the Corporate Secretary to set Board calendars, determine agendas for Board meetings, ensure proper flow of information to Board members, facilitate effective operation of the Board and its Committees, help promote Board succession planning and the recruitment and orientation of new directors, oversee director performance, assist in consideration and Board adoption of the Company’s strategic plan and annual operating plans, and help promote senior management succession planning.

The Lead Independent Director, whose responsibilities are described in detail above, works with the Chairman in ensuring the proper operation of the Board, and serves as the principal liaison between the non-management, independent directors and the Chairman and other constituents of the Company, such as shareholders.

Majority Vote Standard

The Company has a majority vote standard for the election of directors in uncontested director elections (with a plurality vote standard applying to contested director elections), coupled with a director resignation policy for those directors who do not receive a majority vote.

In an election of directors which is not a contested election (as defined below), when a quorum is present, each nominee to be elected by shareholders shall be elected if the votes cast “for” such nominee exceed the votes cast “against” such nominee. In cases where as of the tenth (10 ^th ) day preceding the date on which the Company first mails its notice of meeting, for the meeting at which directors are being elected, the number of nominees for director exceeds the number of directors to be elected (referred to as a “contested election”), when a quorum is present, each nominee to be elected by shareholders shall be elected by a plurality of the votes cast.

In order for an incumbent director to become a nominee for re-election to the Board, such person must submit an irrevocable resignation, contingent on both that person not receiving a “for” vote that exceeds the “against” vote cast in an election that is not a contested election and acceptance of that resignation by the Board in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Board adopted for such purpose. In the event an incumbent director fails to receive a “for” vote that exceeds the “against” vote in an election that is not a contested election, the Company’s Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee shall make a recommendation to the Board as to whether to accept or reject the resignation of such incumbent director.

The Board shall act on the resignation, taking into account the recommendation of the Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee, and publicly disclose (by filing an appropriate disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission) its decision regarding the resignation and, if such resignation is rejected, the rationale for that decision, within sixty (60) days following the final certification of the vote at which the election was held. The Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee in making its recommendation, and the Board in making its decision, may each consider all factors and information that they consider relevant and appropriate. Both the Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee, in making their recommendation, and the Board in making its decision, with respect to any given nominee who has not received the requisite vote in an election that is not a contested election, will act without the participation of the nominee in question.

Overboarding Policy

The Company has a policy providing that our board members may not serve on the boards of directors of more than a total of four public companies (including the Company’s Board) and/or registered investment fund families. If the director is also a sitting Chief Executive Officer of a public company, the director may not serve on more than one other public company board or registered investment fund family board, in addition to the Company’s board.

Proxy Access

In response to the affirmative vote of a majority of our shareholders on a proxy access shareholder proposal at our 2015 Annual Meeting, and other feedback received from our shareholders, including as part of our ongoing shareholder outreach, in October 2015 the Board amended the Company’s Amended and Restated By-Laws to implement a “proxy access” procedure. The By-Law amendment allows a shareholder or a group of up to 20 shareholders, who has maintained continuous ownership of at least 3% of the voting power of the Company’s outstanding voting stock for at least 3 years, to include nominees for election to the Board of Directors in the Company’s proxy statement. Subject to compliance with the requirements of the proxy access By-Law provisions, the shareholder or group of shareholders may include director nominees for up to the greater of (i) 20% of the Board, rounded down to the nearest whole number, or (ii) 2 nominees. Details concerning the Proxy Access procedure are set forth in this proxy statement beginning on page 16.

Share Retention Requirements

The Company has historically had share ownership guidelines which apply to all officers and employees at or above the Senior Vice President level and establish target share ownership levels which executives are expected to achieve over a five-year period and then maintain, absent extenuating circumstances. To further align executives’ interests with the long-term interests of shareholders, effective

Table of Contents

March 1, 2014, the Company adopted amendments to the share ownership policy, which include a requirement to retain a portion of any net shares realized from stock vesting or option exercises during the five-year period an executive has to achieve their stock ownership requirement until the executive’s ownership requirement level is satisfied. Until the applicable ownership level is achieved, the executive is required to retain an amount equal to at least 50% of the net shares received as a result of the exercise, vesting or payment of any equity awards granted to the executive following such executive becoming subject to the policy. Once the required stock ownership level is achieved, the executive is required to maintain the stock ownership level for as long as the executive is employed by the Company and is subject to the policy.

Equity Awards Granted in 2013 and Beyond Subject to Double Trigger Following a Change in Control

At the Company’s 2013 Annual Shareholder Meeting, shareholders approved amendments to the Company’s Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Performance Plan, as amended. This approval by our shareholders provided that all awards granted in 2013 and thereafter, including the equity awards granted to Mr. Goldner pursuant to his Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, will be subject to a double trigger change in control provision. This means that rather than vesting automatically upon a change in control, such awards will only vest following a change in control if the award recipient’s employment with the Company is terminated under specified circumstances.

Clawback Policy

In 2012 the Company’s Board adopted a Clawback Policy. All equity and non-equity incentive plan compensation granted by the Company in 2013 and thereafter will be subject to this Clawback Policy. The policy provides that if an accounting restatement is required due to the Company’s material non-compliance with any accounting requirements, then all of the Company’s executive officers, regardless of whether they were at fault or not in the circumstances leading to the restatement, will be subject to forfeiting any excess in the incentive compensation they earned over the prior three years over what they would have earned if there had not been a material non-compliance in the financial statements.

Adoption of a Policy Prohibiting the Pledging or Hedging of Company Stock

In 2012 the Board adopted a policy prohibiting any pledges or hedges of Company stock by directors, officers or other employees on a prospective basis. The Board believes this policy furthers the interest of shareholders by ensuring that directors, officers and employees have the same economic incentives as shareholders and that equity held by directors, officers and employees will not be sold in situations beyond the control of the director, officer or employee.

No Tax Gross-Ups

We do not have any existing tax gross-up arrangements with any of our directors, officers or other employees and we have made a commitment to not enter into such arrangements in the future.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) unites Hasbro’s desire to play a part in building a safe and sustainable world for future generations and to positively impact the lives of millions of children and families every year. The Company focuses its CSR initiatives on three key areas: product safety, ethical sourcing and environmental sustainability. Another important element of the Company’s CSR efforts is its tradition of supporting children worldwide through a variety of philanthropic programs. Hasbro recently received several prestigious recognitions in this area, including being named by Ethisphere as a 2016 World’s Most Ethical Company. This was our fifth consecutive year to receive that award. We are also ranked as one of the Most Community Minded Companies on Bloomberg News’ “The Civic 50” and well as the 100 Best Corporate Citizens #2/100 and #1 in Consumer Discretionary Companies.

Board Meetings and Director Attendance at the Annual Meeting

During 2015, the Board held eight meetings. All directors attended at least 75% of the aggregate of (i) the Board meetings held during their tenure as directors during 2015 and (ii) the meetings of any committees held during their tenure as members of such committees during 2015. Although the Company does not have a formal policy requiring attendance of directors at the annual meeting of shareholders, the expectation of the Company and the Board is that all directors will attend the annual meeting of shareholders unless conflicts prevent them from attending. All members of the Board who were members as of the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders attended the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

Board Committees

Audit Committee. The Audit Committee of the Board, which currently consists of Tracy A. Leinbach (Chair), Alan R. Batkin, Michael R. Burns, Richard S. Stoddart and Linda K. Zecher, held eleven meetings in 2015. The Audit Committee is responsible for the appointment,

Table of Contents

compensation and oversight of the Company’s independent auditor and assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibility to oversee management’s conduct of the Company’s financial reporting process, the financial reports provided by the Company, the Company’s systems of internal accounting and financial controls, and the quarterly review and annual independent audit of the Company’s financial statements. The current Audit Committee Charter adopted by the Board is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investors — Corporate Governance — Committee Charters.”

The Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee meets both the Company’s Independence Standards and the requirements for independence under The NASDAQ Stock Market’s corporate governance listing standards. The Board has determined that Tracy A. Leinbach qualifies as an Audit Committee Financial Expert, as such term is defined in the rules and regulations promulgated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Board does not have a policy setting rigid limits on the number of audit committees on which a member of the Company’s Audit Committee can serve. Instead, in cases where an Audit Committee member serves on more than three public company audit committees, the Board evaluates whether such simultaneous service would impair the service of such member on the Company’s Audit Committee.

Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee of the Board, which currently consists of Edward M. Philip (Chair), Basil L. Anderson, Kenneth A. Bronfin, Crispin H. Davis, Lisa Gersh and Linda K. Zecher, held five meetings in 2015. The Compensation Committee is responsible for establishing and overseeing the compensation and benefits for the Company’s senior management, including all of the Company’s executive officers, is authorized to make grants and awards under the Company’s employee stock equity plan and shares responsibility for evaluation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer with the Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee.

The current Compensation Committee Charter adopted by the Board is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investors — Corporate Governance — Committee Charters.” The Board has determined that each member of the Compensation Committee meets both the Company’s Independence Standards and the requirements for independence under The NASDAQ Stock Market’s corporate governance listing standards. For a further description and discussion concerning the Compensation Committee, including its composition and its processes and procedures for determining the compensation of the Company’s executive officers, please see the Compensation Committee Report on page 21 of this Proxy Statement, and the Compensation Discussion and Analysis which begins immediately thereafter.

As is discussed in more detail on page 39 of this Proxy Statement, in reviewing the proposed fiscal 2015 compensation and retention program for the Company’s executive officers at the beginning of 2015, the Compensation Committee received input and recommendations from Compensation Advisory Partners LLC (“CAP”) who served as an outside compensation consultant for the Compensation Committee. For its work with respect to advising on the 2015 compensation program, CAP was retained by, and reported directly to, the members of the Committee. CAP advised the Committee with respect to the Committee’s review of the Company’s 2015 executive compensation programs and provided additional information as to whether the Company’s proposed 2015 executive compensation programs were competitive, fair to the Company and the executives, reflected appropriate pay for performance, provided appropriate retention to executives, and were effective in promoting the performance of the Company’s executives and achievement of the Company’s business and financial goals. CAP did not perform any other work for the Company in 2015 and in order to maintain CAP’s independence the Committee has established a policy that CAP will not provide any services directly to the Company and will only provide services directly to the Committee. CAP does not have any relationship with the Company which the Committee believes in any way adversely impacts CAP’s independence. The Committee’s review of CAP’s independence is discussed in more detail on page 39 of this Proxy Statement.

In addition to the work performed by CAP directly for the Committee with respect to the 2015 compensation program, Willis Towers Watson (“Towers Watson”) was retained by the Company’s Human Resources and Compensation Departments to perform analysis on the Company’s current and proposed compensation and benefit programs, including preparation of proxy tables and executive tally sheets for management, consulting and benefits administration services for the Company, including services for the Company’s health and group benefits programs and retirement plans, work in connection with the Company’s online total reward statements for employees and work providing compensation surveys and other compensation and benefits information.

Additionally, the Company’s Human Resources and Compensation Departments retained Mercer LLC to perform consulting services relating to the Company’s retirement investments and to provide compensation surveys and other compensation and benefits information.

Executive Committee. The Executive Committee of the Board, which currently consists of Alan G. Hassenfeld (Chair), Basil L. Anderson, Kenneth A. Bronfin, Brian D. Goldner, Tracy A. Leinbach and Edward M. Philip , did not meet in 2015. The Executive Committee acts on such matters as are specifically assigned to it from time to time by the Board and is vested with all of the powers that are held by the Board, except that by law the Executive Committee may not exercise any power of the Board relating to the adoption of amendments to the Company’s Articles of Incorporation or By-laws, adoption of a plan of merger or consolidation, the sale, lease or exchange of all or substantially all the property or assets of the Company or the voluntary dissolution of the Company. The current Executive Committee Charter adopted by the Board is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investors — Corporate Governance — Committee Charters.”

Table of Contents

Finance Committee. The Finance Committee of the Board, which currently consists of Kenneth A. Bronfin (Chair), Michael R. Burns, Alan G. Hassenfeld and Richard S. Stoddart, met four times in 2015. The Finance Committee assists the Board in overseeing the Company’s annual and long-term financial plans, capital structure, use of funds, investments, financial and risk management and proposed significant transactions. The current Finance Committee Charter adopted by the Board is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investors — Corporate Governance — Committee Charters.” The Board has determined that each member of the Finance Committee meets both the Company’s Independence Standards and the requirements for independence under The NASDAQ Stock Market’s corporate governance listing standards.

Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee. The Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee of the Board (the “Nominating Committee”), which currently consists of Basil L. Anderson (Chair), Alan R. Batkin, Crispin H. Davis, Lisa Gersh, Tracy A. Leinbach and Edward M. Philip, met five times in 2015. The Nominating Committee identifies and evaluates individuals qualified to become Board members and makes recommendations to the full Board for possible additions to the Board and on the director nominees for election at the Company’s annual meeting. The Nominating Committee also oversees and makes recommendations regarding the governance of the Board and the committees thereof, including the Company’s governance principles, Board and Board committee evaluations and the Chair of the Nominating Committee shares with the Compensation Committee responsibility for evaluation of the Chief Executive Officer.

In addition, the Nominating Committee periodically reviews, and makes recommendations to the full Board with respect to, the compensation paid to non-employee directors for their service on the Company’s Board, including the structure and elements of non-employee director compensation. In structuring the Company’s director compensation, the Nominating Committee seeks to attract and retain talented directors who will contribute significantly to the Company, fairly compensate directors for their work on behalf of the Company and align the interests of directors with those of stockholders. As part of its review of director compensation, the Nominating Committee reviews external director compensation market studies to assure that director compensation is set at reasonable levels which are commensurate with those prevailing at other similar companies and that the structure of the Company’s non-employee director compensation programs is effective in attracting and retaining highly qualified directors. In 2006, the Company adopted director stock ownership guidelines which require that a director may not sell any shares of the Company’s Common Stock, including shares acquired as part of the yearly equity grant, until the director holds shares of common stock with a value equal to at least five times the current non-employee directors’ annual retainer (currently requiring holdings with a value of $475,000). Please see the Compensation of Directors section beginning on page 58 of this Proxy Statement for a full discussion of the Company’s compensation of its directors.

Further, the Nominating Committee oversees the Company’s codes of business conduct and ethics, and analyzes significant issues of corporate social responsibility and related corporate conduct, including product safety, environmental sustainability and climate change, human rights and ethical sourcing, responsible marketing, transparency, public policy matters, community relations and charitable contributions. The current Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee Charter adopted by the Board is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investors — Corporate Governance — Committee Charters.” The Board has determined that each member of the Nominating Committee meets both the Company’s Independence Standards and the requirements for independence under The NASDAQ Stock Market’s corporate governance listing standards.

In making its nominations for election to the Board the Nominating Committee seeks candidates who meet the current challenges and needs of the Board. As part of this process the Committee considers a number of factors, including, among others, a candidate’s employment and other professional experience, past expertise and involvement in areas which are relevant to the Company’s business, business ethics and professional reputation, independence, other board experience, and the Company’s desire to have a Board that represents a diverse mix of backgrounds, perspectives and expertise. The Company does not have a formal policy for considering diversity in identifying and recommending nominees for election to the Board, but the Nominating Committee considers diversity of viewpoint, experience, education, skill, background and other qualities in its overall consideration of nominees qualified for election to the Board. The Nominating Committee will consider and evaluate nominees recommended by shareholders for election to the Board on the same basis as candidates from other sources if such nominations are made in accordance with the process set forth in the following pages under “Shareholder Proposals and Director Nominations.” The Nominating Committee uses multiple sources for identifying and evaluating nominees for director, including referrals from current directors, recommendations by shareholders and input from third-party executive search firms. As part of the Company’s robust board succession planning process and efforts to continually maintain the high functioning of the board, Sir Crispin Davis was appointed to the Board in February 2016.

As of December 6, 2015 (the date that is 120 calendar days before the first anniversary of the release date of the proxy statement for the Company’s last Annual Meeting of Shareholders) the Nominating Committee had not received a recommended nominee for election to the Board in 2015 from an individual shareholder, or group of shareholders, who beneficially owned more than 5% of the Company’s Common Stock.

Role of the Board in Risk Oversight

The Board of Directors is actively involved in risk oversight for the Company. Although the Board as a whole has retained oversight over the Company’s risk assessment and risk management efforts, the efforts of the various committees of the Board are instrumental in this process. Each committee, generally through its Chair, then regularly reports back to the full Board on the conduct of the committee’s functions. The Board, as well as the individual Board committees, also regularly speaks directly with key officers and employees of the

Table of Contents

Company involved in risk assessment and risk management. Set forth below is a description of the role of the various Board committees, and the full Board, in risk oversight for the Company.

The Audit Committee assists the Board in risk oversight for the Company by reviewing and discussing with management, internal auditors and the independent auditors the Company’s significant financial and other exposures, and guidelines and policies relating to enterprise risk assessment and risk management, including the Company’s procedures for monitoring and controlling such risks. In addition to exercising oversight over key financial and business risks, the Audit Committee oversees, on behalf of the Board, financial reporting, tax, and accounting matters, as well as the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting. The Audit Committee also plays a key role in oversight of the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.

The Finance Committee of the Board reviews and discusses with management the Company’s financial risk management activities and strategies, including with respect to foreign currency, credit risk, interest rate exposure, and the use of hedging and other techniques to manage these risks. As part of its review of the operating budget and strategic plan the Finance Committee also reviews major business risks to the Company and the Company’s efforts to manage those risks.

The Compensation Committee oversees the compensation programs for the Company’s executive officers. As part of that process the Compensation Committee ensures that the performance goals and metrics being used in the Company’s compensation plans and arrangements align the interests of executives with those of the Company and its shareholders and maximize executive and Company performance, while not creating incentives on the part of executives to take excessive or inappropriate risks.

The Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee has oversight over the Company’s governance policies and structures, management and director succession planning, corporate social responsibility, and issues related to health, safety and the environment, as well as risks and efforts to manage risks to the Company in those areas.

The full Board then regularly reviews the efforts of each of its committees and discusses, at the level of the full Board, the key strategic, financial, business, legal and other risks facing the Company, as well as the Company’s efforts to manage those risks.

Director Retirement Age

The Board has established a target retirement age of 72. Normally, a Director who has reached this age will serve out his or her current term and not stand for re-election at the end of that term. However, the Board recognizes that from time to time there may be unusual circumstances where exceptions need to be made to this general rule to retain needed continuity and expertise, or for other business reasons.

Additional Availability of Corporate Governance Materials

In addition to being accessible on the Company’s website, copies of the Company’s Code of Conduct, Corporate Governance Principles and the charters of the five committees of the Board of Directors are all available free of charge to any shareholder upon request to the Company’s Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, c/o Hasbro, Inc., 1011 Newport Avenue, P.O. Box 1059, Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02861.

Shareholder Proposals and Director Nominations

General Shareholder Proposals

To Be Considered at the Annual Meeting and Considered for Inclusion in the Proxy Materials. Any proposal which a shareholder of the Company wishes to have considered for inclusion in the proxy statement and proxy relating to the Company’s 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders must be received by the Secretary of the Company at the Company’s executive offices no later than December 5, 2016 (the date that is 120 calendar days before the anniversary of the release date of the proxy statement relating to the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders). The address of the Company’s executive offices is 1011 Newport Avenue, Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02861. Such proposals must also comply with the other requirements of the rules of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to shareholder proposals.

To Be Considered at the Annual Meeting But Not Included in the Proxy Materials. With the exception of the submission of director nominations for consideration by the Nominating Committee, which must be submitted to the Company in the manner described below, any new business proposed by any shareholder to be taken up at the 2017 Annual Meeting, but not included in the proxy statement or proxy relating to that meeting, must be stated in writing and filed with the Secretary of the Company no later than 150 days prior to the date of the 2017 Annual Meeting. Except for shareholder proposals made pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the Company will retain discretion to vote proxies at the 2017 Annual Meeting with respect to proposals received prior to the date that is 150 days before the date of such meeting, provided (i) the Company includes in its 2017 Annual Meeting proxy statement advice on the nature of the proposal and how it intends to exercise its voting discretion and (ii) the proponent does not issue a proxy statement.

Table of Contents

Director Nominations

Director Nominations to be made at the Annual Meeting But Not Included in the Proxy Materials. The Company’s By-laws provide that shareholders may themselves nominate directors for consideration at an annual meeting provided they give written notice to the Secretary of the Company. Such notice must be received at the principal executive office of the Company not less than 60 days nor more than 90 days prior to the one-year anniversary date of the immediately preceding annual meeting of shareholders and provide specified information regarding the proposed nominee and each shareholder proposing such nomination. Nominations made by shareholders in this manner are eligible to be presented by the shareholder to the meeting, but such nominees will not have been considered by the Nominating Committee as a nominee to be potentially supported by the Company and will not have been included in the Company’s proxy materials.

Director Nominations to be Considered by the Company’s Nominating Committee. To be considered by the Nominating Committee, director nominations must be submitted to the Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company at the Company’s executive offices, 1011 Newport Avenue, Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02861 not less than ninety (90) nor more than one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to the one-year anniversary of the preceding year’s annual meeting. As such, director nominations to be considered for the Company’s 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders must be submitted no later than February 18, 2017. The Nominating Committee is only required to consider recommendations made by shareholders, or groups of shareholders, that have beneficially owned at least 1% of the Company’s Common Stock for at least one year prior to the date the shareholder(s) submit such candidate to the Nominating Committee and who undertake to continue to hold at least 1% of the Company’s Common Stock through the date of the next annual meeting. In addition, a nominating shareholder(s) may only submit one candidate to the Nominating Committee for consideration.

Submissions to the Nominating Committee should include (a) as to each person whom the shareholder proposes to nominate for election or re-election as a director (i) the name, age, business address and residence address of the person, (ii) the principal occupation or employment of the person, (iii) the class or series and number of shares of capital stock of the Company that are owned beneficially or of record by the person, (iv ) any other information relating to the person that would be required to be disclosed in a proxy statement or other filings required to be made in connection with solicitations of proxies for election of directors pursuant to Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and (v) confirmation that the candidate is independent under the Company’s Independence Standards and the rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market, or if the candidate is not independent under all such criteria, a description of the reasons why the candidate is not independent; and (b) as to the shareholder(s) giving the notice (i) the name and record address of such shareholder(s) and each participant in any group of which such shareholder is a member, (ii) the class or series and number of shares of capital stock of the Company that are owned beneficially or of record by such shareholder(s) and each participant in any group of which such shareholder is a member, (iii) if the nominating shareholder is not a record holder of the shares of capital stock of the Company, evidence of ownership as provided in Rule 14a-8(b)(2) under the Exchange Act, (iv) a description of all arrangements or understandings between such shareholder(s) and each proposed nominee and any other person or persons (including their names) pursuant to which the nomination(s) are to be made by such shareholder(s), and (v) any other information relating to such shareholder(s) that would be required to be disclosed in a proxy statement or other filings required to be made in connection with solicitations of proxies for election of directors pursuant to Section 14 of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

The Nominating Committee may require that any proposed nominee for election to the Board furnish such other information as may reasonably be required by the Nominating Committee to determine the eligibility of such proposed nominee to serve as director of the Company. The written notice from the nominating shareholder specifying a candidate to be considered as a nominee for election as a director must be accompanied by a written consent of each proposed nominee for director. In this written consent the nominee must consent to (i) being named as a nominee for director, (ii) serve as a director and represent all shareholders of the Company in accordance with applicable laws and the Company’s Articles of Incorporation, By-laws and other policies if such nominee is elected, (iii) comply with all rules, policies or requirements generally applicable to non-employee directors of the Company, and (iv) complete and sign customary information requests upon the request of the Company.

Proxy Access Procedure for Director Nominees. Set forth below is a summary of the Company’s proxy access procedure which was adopted in 2015 and which is contained in Section 2.10(d) of the Company’s Amended and Restated By-laws. Shareholders are referred to the By-laws for the full details related to this procedure. Pursuant to the proxy access procedure, the Company shall include in its proxy statement (including its form of proxy) for any annual meeting of shareholders the name of any shareholder nominee for election to the Board of Directors submitted pursuant to Section 2.10(d) of the By-laws (each a “Shareholder Nominee”) provided (i) timely written notice of such Shareholder Nominee satisfying the requirements of Section 2.10(d) is delivered to the Secretary of the Company by or on behalf of a shareholder or shareholders that, at the time the notice is delivered, satisfy the ownership and other requirements of Section 2.10(d) (such shareholder or shareholders, and any person on whose behalf they are acting, the “Eligible Shareholder”), (ii) the Eligible Shareholder expressly elects in writing at the time of providing the notice required by Section 2.10(d) to have its nominee included in the Corporation’s proxy statement, and (iii) the Eligible Shareholder and the Shareholder Nominee otherwise satisfy the requirements of Section 2.10 of the By-laws.

To be timely, an Eligible Shareholder’s notice to the Secretary must be delivered to or mailed and received at the principal executive offices of the Company not less than ninety (90) days nor more than one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to the one-year anniversary date of the immediately preceding annual meeting of shareholders; provided that if the date of the annual meeting is

Table of Contents

advanced more than thirty (30) days prior to or delayed by more than thirty (30) days after such anniversary date, notice by the shareholder to be timely must be so delivered not earlier than the one hundred twentieth (120th) day prior to such annual meeting and not later than the later of (x) the ninetieth (90th) day prior to the date of such annual meeting or (y) the tenth (10th) day following the day on which notice of the date of the annual meeting was mailed or public disclosure of the date of the annual meeting was made, whichever first occurs.

In addition to including the name of the Shareholder Nominee in the Company’s proxy statement for the annual meeting, the Company also shall include (i) the information concerning the Shareholder Nominee and the Eligible Shareholder that is required to be disclosed in the Company’s proxy statement pursuant to Section 14 of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; and (ii) if the Eligible Shareholder so elects, a Statement (defined below) (collectively, the “Required Information”). Nothing in Section 2.10(d) shall limit the Company’s ability to solicit against and include in its proxy statement its own statements relating to any Shareholder Nominee.

The number of Shareholder Nominees (including Shareholder Nominees that were submitted by an Eligible Shareholder for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement pursuant to Section 2.10(d) but either are subsequently withdrawn or that the Board of Directors decides to nominate (each a “Board Nominee”)) appearing in the Company’s proxy statement with respect to a meeting of shareholders shall not exceed the greater of (i) two (2) or (ii) 20% of the number of directors in office as of the last day on which notice of a nomination may be delivered pursuant to Section 2.10(d) (the “Final Proxy Access Nomination Date”) or, if such amount is not a whole number, the closest whole number below 20% (the “Permitted Number”).

In the event that the number of Shareholder Nominees submitted by Eligible Shareholders pursuant to Section 2.10(d) exceeds the Permitted Number, each Eligible Shareholder shall select one Shareholder Nominee for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement until the Permitted Number is reached, going in the order of the amount (largest to smallest) of shares of the Company’s capital stock each Eligible Shareholder disclosed as owned in the original written notice of the nomination submitted to the Company. If the Permitted Number is not reached after each Eligible Shareholder has selected one Shareholder Nominee, this selection process shall continue as many times as necessary, following the same order each time, until the Permitted Number is reached.

An Eligible Shareholder must have owned (as defined below) continuously for at least three (3) years a number of shares that represents 3% or more of the total voting power of the Company’s outstanding shares of capital stock entitled to vote on the election of directors (the “Required Shares”) as of both the date the written notice of the nomination is delivered to or mailed and received by the Company in accordance with Section 2.10(d) and the record date for determining shareholders entitled to vote at the meeting, and must continue to own the Required Shares through the meeting date. For purposes of satisfying the ownership requirement under Section 2.10(d), the shares of the Company’s capital stock owned by one or more shareholders, or by the person or persons who own shares of the Company’s capital stock and on whose behalf any shareholder is acting, may be aggregated, provided that the number of shareholders and other persons whose ownership of shares is aggregated for such purpose shall not exceed twenty (20). The following shall be treated as one Eligible Shareholder if such Eligible Shareholder shall provide, together with the notice delivered to the Company pursuant to this Section, documentation reasonably satisfactory to the Board of Directors or its designee that demonstrates compliance with the following criteria: (1) funds under common management and investment control; (2) funds under common management and funded primarily by the same employer; or (3) a “family of investment companies” or a “group of investment companies” (each as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the rules, regulations and forms adopted thereunder, all as amended). With respect to any one particular annual meeting, no person may be a member of more than one group of persons constituting an Eligible Shareholder under Section 2.10 (d).

A person shall be deemed to “own” only those outstanding shares of the Company’s capital stock as to which the person possesses both (i) the full voting and investment rights pertaining to the shares and (ii) the full economic interest in (including the opportunity for profit and risk of loss on) such shares; provided that the number of shares calculated in accordance with clauses (i) and (ii) shall not include any shares (x) sold by such person or any of its affiliates in any transaction that has not been settled or closed, (y) borrowed by such person or any of its affiliates for any purposes or purchased by such person or any of its affiliates pursuant to an agreement to resell or (z) subject to any option, warrant, forward contract, swap, contract of sale, other derivative or similar agreement entered into by such person or any of its affiliates, whether any such instrument or agreement is to be settled with shares or with cash based on the notional amount or value of outstanding shares of the Company’s capital stock, in any such case which instrument or agreement has, or is intended to have, the purpose or effect of (A) reducing in any manner, to any extent or at any time in the future, such person’s or affiliates’ full right to vote or direct the voting of any such shares, and/or (B) hedging, offsetting or altering to any degree gain or loss arising from the full economic ownership of such shares by such person or affiliate.

A person shall “own” shares held in the name of a nominee or other intermediary so long as the person retains the right to instruct how the shares are voted with respect to the election of directors and possesses the full economic interest in the shares. A person’s ownership of shares shall be deemed to continue during any period in which (i) the person has loaned such shares, provided that the person has the power to recall such loaned shares on five (5) business days’ notice or (ii) the person has delegated any voting power by means of a proxy, power of attorney or other instrument or arrangement that is revocable at any time by the person.

The Eligible Shareholder must provide with its timely notice of nomination the following information in writing to the Secretary of the Company: (i) one or more written statements from the record holder of the shares (and from each intermediary through which the

Table of Contents

shares are or have been held during the requisite three (3) year holding period) verifying that, as of a date within seven (7) calendar days prior to the date the written notice of the nomination is delivered to or mailed and received by the Company, the Eligible Shareholder owns, and has owned continuously for the preceding three (3) years, the Required Shares, and the Eligible Shareholder’s agreement to provide, (A) within five (5) business days after the record date for the meeting, written statements from the record holder and intermediaries verifying the Eligible Shareholder’s continuous ownership of the Required Shares through the record date, and (B) immediate notice if the Eligible Shareholder ceases to own any of the Required Shares prior to the date of the applicable annual meeting of shareholders; (ii) documentation satisfactory to the Company demonstrating that a group of funds treated as one shareholder meet the applicable requirements; (iii) a representation that the Eligible Shareholder (including each member of any group of shareholders that together is an Eligible Shareholder hereunder): (A) intends to continue to own the Required Shares through the date of the annual meeting; (B) acquired the Required Shares in the ordinary course of business and not with the intent to change or influence control of the Company, and does not presently have such intent; (C) has not nominated and will not nominate for election to the Board of Directors at the meeting any person other than the Shareholder Nominee being nominated pursuant to Section 2.10(d); (D) has not engaged and will not engage in, and has not and will not be, a “participant” in another person’s “solicitation” within the meaning of Rule 14a-1(l) under the Exchange Act in support of the election of any individual as a director at the meeting other than its Shareholder Nominee or a Board Nominee; (E) will not distribute to any shareholder any form of proxy for the meeting other than the form distributed by the Company; and (F) will provide facts, statements and other information in all communications with the Company and its shareholders that are or will be true and correct in all material respects and do not and will not omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; (iv) the written consent of each Shareholder Nominee to be named in the proxy statement as a nominee and to serve as a director if elected; (v) a copy of the Schedule 14N that has been filed with the SEC as required by Rule 14a-18 under the Exchange Act; (vi) in the case of a nomination by a group of persons that together is an Eligible Shareholder, the designation by all group members of one group member that is authorized to act on behalf of all members of the nominating shareholder group with respect to the nomination and matters related thereto, including withdrawal of the nomination; and (vii) an undertaking from the Eligible Shareholder as to the matters set forth in Section 2.10(d) of the By-laws.

The Eligible Shareholder may include with its timely notice of a nomination, a written statement for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement for the meeting, not to exceed 500 words, in support of the Shareholder Nominee’s candidacy (the “Statement”). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Company may omit from its proxy statement any information or Statement that it believes would violate any applicable law, rule, regulation or listing standard. At the request of the Company, each Shareholder Nominee must provide the Company with an agreement as to the matters specified in Section 2.10(d) of the By-laws.

The Company shall not be required to include a Shareholder Nominee in its proxy statement (or, if the proxy statement has already been filed, to allow the nomination of a Shareholder Nominee, notwithstanding that proxies in respect of such vote may have been received by the Company): (i) if the Eligible Shareholder has nominated for election to the Board of Directors at the annual meeting any person (other than the Shareholder Nominee) and does not expressly elect at the time of providing the notice to have its nominee included in the Company’s proxy statement; (ii) if the Eligible Shareholder has or is engaged in, or has been or is a “participant” in another person’s, “solicitation” within the meaning of Rule 14a-1(l) under the Exchange Act in support of the election of any individual as a director at the meeting other than its Shareholder Nominee or a Board Nominee; (iii) who is not independent under the applicable listing standards, any applicable rules of the SEC and any publicly disclosed standards used by the Board of Directors in determining and disclosing the independence of the Company’s directors, as determined by the Board of Directors; (iv) whose election as a member of the Board of Directors would cause the Company to be in violation of the By-Laws, the Articles of Incorporation, the listing standards of the principal exchange upon which the Company’s capital stock is traded, or any applicable state or federal law, rule or regulation; (v) if the Shareholder Nominee is or becomes a party to any compensatory, payment or other financial agreement, arrangement or understanding with any person or entity in connection with his or her nomination, service or action as a director of the Company, or any agreement, arrangement or understanding with any person or entity as to how the Shareholder Nominee would vote or act on any issue or question as a director, in each case that has not been disclosed to the Company; (vi) who is or has been, within the past three (3) years, an officer or director of a competitor, as defined in Section 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, as amended; (vii) whose then-current or within the preceding ten (10) years’ business or personal interests place such Shareholder Nominee in a conflict of interest with the Company or any of its subsidiaries that would cause such Shareholder Nominee to violate any fiduciary duties of directors established pursuant to Rhode Island law, including but not limited to the duty of loyalty and duty of care, as determined by the Board of Directors; (viii) who is a named subject of a pending criminal proceeding (excluding traffic violations and other minor offenses) or has been convicted in such a criminal proceeding within the past ten (10) years; (ix) who is subject to any order of the type specified in Rule 506(d) of Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended; or (x) if such Shareholder Nominee or the applicable Eligible Shareholder shall have provided information to the Company in respect of such nomination that was untrue in any material respect or omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, as determined by the Board of Directors.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein, the Board of Directors or the person presiding at the meeting shall declare a nomination by an Eligible Shareholder to be invalid, and such nomination shall be disregarded notwithstanding that proxies in respect of such vote may have been received by the Company, if (i) the Shareholder Nominee and/or the applicable Eligible Shareholder shall have breached its or their agreements, representations, undertakings and/or obligations pursuant Section 2.10(d), as determined by the Board

Table of Contents

of Directors or the person presiding at the meeting or (ii) the Eligible Shareholder (or a qualified representative thereof) does not appear at the meeting to present any nomination pursuant to Section 2.10(d).

Any Shareholder Nominee who is included in the Company’s proxy statement for a particular meeting of shareholders but either (i) withdraws from or becomes ineligible or unavailable for election at the meeting or (ii) does not receive a number of votes cast in favor of his or her election at least equal to 25% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy at the annual meeting and entitled to vote on the Shareholder Nominee’s election, shall be ineligible to be included in the Company’s proxy statement as a Shareholder Nominee pursuant to Section 2.10(d) for the next two (2) annual meetings of shareholders following the meeting for which the Shareholder Nominee has been nominated for election.

Table of Contents

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED PERSON TRANSACTIONS

The Company has a policy that any transaction which would require disclosure under Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K of the rules and regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, with respect to a director or nominee for election as a director, must be reviewed and approved or ratified by the Company’s full Board, excluding any director interested in such transaction. All other related person transactions which would require disclosure under Item 404(a), including, without limitation, those involving executive officers of the Company, must be reviewed and approved or ratified by either the Company’s full Board or a committee of the Board which has been delegated with such duty. Any such related person transactions will only be approved or ratified if the Board, or the applicable committee of the Board, determines that such transaction will not impair the involved person’s service to, and exercise of judgment on behalf of, the Company, or otherwise create a conflict of interest which would be detrimental to the Company. This policy is contained in Section 20, entitled “Code of Conduct; Conflicts of Interest” of the Company’s Corporate Governance Principles.

In 2015 the Company entered into a Rights Agreement with NGC Films, Inc. (“NGC”), an affiliate of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., pursuant to which NGC Films has the option to acquire rights to produce and release a motion picture based upon the Company’s MONOPOLY property. Pursuant to that agreement NGC Films paid a $250,000 option fee to the Company in 2015. If NGC ultimately exercises its option it will pay the Company an agreed upfront rights fee for the motion picture rights and a producer fee, as well as future contingent compensation based upon the receipts from the motion picture. The Company will pay NGC a royalty on sales of picture-based merchandise sold by the Company. The terms of the Rights Agreement were reviewed with and approved by the Company’s Board of Directors prior to this transaction being entered to ensure they were commercially reasonable and appropriate. The Rights Agreement was negotiated at arms-length between the Company and NGC and the Company believes that the terms of its agreement with NGC are commercially reasonable and appropriate. Mr. Burns, a member of the Company’s Board of Directors, is the Vice Chairman of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.

The Company is also entering an agreement with Lions Gate Films Inc. (“Lions Gate Films”) pursuant to which Lions Gate Films will distribute a motion picture being developed by the Company based upon the Company’s MY LITTLE PONY property. Lions Gate Films will receive a specified distribution fee for distributing the motion picture. This Agreement is also being negotiated at arms-length between the Company and Lions Gate Films and the terms have been reviewed with and approved by the Company’s Board of Directors. The Company believes the terms are commercially reasonable and appropriate.

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee (the “Compensation Committee” or the “Committee”) of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) is responsible for establishing and overseeing the compensation programs for the Company’s executive officers, including all of the Company’s Named Executive Officers appearing in the compensation tables following this report, and is authorized to make grants and awards under the Company’s equity compensation plans. The Committee operates under a written charter, which has been established by the Company’s Board and which is reviewed and evaluated by both the Committee and the Board on an annual basis. The Compensation Committee charter is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investors — Corporate Governance.”

The Committee is composed solely of persons who are both “Non-Employee Directors,” as defined in Rule 16b-3 of the rules and regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and “outside directors,” as defined in Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). The Board has determined that each member of the Committee is independent under the Company’s Independence Standards and the requirements of The NASDAQ Stock Market’s corporate governance listing standards. The exercise of independent judgment in furtherance of the interests of the Company and its shareholders is a cornerstone of the Committee’s actions.

The following section of this Proxy Statement, entitled “Compensation Discussion and Analysis”, contains a detailed discussion regarding the philosophy, policies, processes and compensation plans utilized by the Committee in establishing the compensation programs for the Company’s executive officers and in assuring that the Company’s compensation programs attract and retain top executive talent, align the interests of the executive team with those of the Company’s shareholders, create a powerful linkage between pay and performance and maximize the business results of the Company.

The Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis that follows this report. Based on its review and discussions with management, the Committee recommended to the Company’s full Board, and the full Board has approved, the inclusion of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis in this Proxy Statement for the Meeting and, by incorporation by reference, in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 27, 2015.

Report issued by the members of the Compensation Committee as of the Company’s 2015 fiscal year end.

Edward Philip (Chair)

Basil Anderson

Kenneth Bronfin

Lisa Gersh

Linda Zecher

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In the following Compensation Discussion and Analysis, we describe the compensation programs for our Named Executive Officers (NEOs).

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

2015 Named Executive Officers

The name and title of each of the Company’s Named Executive Officers (NEOs) for 2015 are as follows:

Business and Performance Overview

Hasbro is a global company committed to Creating the World’s Best Play Experiences. We strive to accomplish this by leveraging our beloved brands, including our seven Franchise brands: LITTLEST PET SHOP, MAGIC: THE GATHERING, MONOPOLY, MY LITTLE PONY, NERF, PLAY-DOH and TRANSFORMERS, across our Brand Blueprint, and by applying our expertise to our premier Partner brands, such as MARVEL and STAR WARS. From toys and games to television programming, motion pictures, digital gaming and a comprehensive consumer products licensing program, Hasbro fulfills the fundamental need for play and connection for children and families around the world.

In 2015, we delivered record revenues and earnings as we continued driving the performance of our Company across brands, business segments and geographic markets. Through a focus on Franchise and Partner brands, consumer engagement, consumer insights, innovative product development and compelling storytelling, we are connecting with consumers more deeply and across more demographics than ever before. Our focus remains on the long-term profitable growth of our Company and on achieving our strategic objectives and investment priorities.

Table of Contents

Providing value and return to our shareholders is the cornerstone of our corporate objectives. The following table compares the total return on our shares of common stock over the designated periods to the returns for the S&P 500 Index and Russell 1000 Consumer Discretionary Index.

The following graphs provide the Company’s annual dividend rate and the year-over-year increases in dividend rates since 2006, as well as the growth in the Company’s underlying diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) over the past five years.

Table of Contents

The following table provides the aggregate amounts we have returned to our shareholders since 2011, in the form of both cash dividends and share repurchases.

Finally, the following table shows our return on invested capital over the last five years. Return on invested capital is computed as net earnings divided by the sum of long-term debt (less debt issuance costs), short-term borrowings and shareholders’ equity.

Shareholder Engagement

Hasbro has engaged with our major shareholders on governance and compensation matters for several years. We do this as part of our commitment to be responsive to shareholders and to ensure that our actions are informed by the viewpoints of you, our investors. We were disappointed with the results of the votes on our executive compensation programs (the Say-on-Pay vote) at both our 2013 and 2014 Annual Meetings. Following our failed 2014 Say-on-Pay vote and informed by our discussions with our shareholders, both our Board of Directors and our Chief Executive Officer, Brian Goldner, mutually decided to amend certain terms of Mr. Goldner’s employment agreement. These amendments were implemented in August of 2014 and were described in detail in our proxy statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting.

Table of Contents

Following these amendments our shareholders overwhelmingly supported our 2015 Say-on-Pay vote, with 96.7% of the shares voted at the 2015 Annual Meeting voting in favor of Say on Pay. Following the 2015 Annual Meeting we again spoke with shareholders who expressed an interest in speaking with management, including each holder who submitted a shareholder proposal for our 2015 Annual Meeting. We had discussions with all of the shareholders who accepted our invitation to meet, comprising holders of approximately 41% of our total shares outstanding, and 70% of the shares held by our top 25 holders, at the time of those discussions. Based upon our continuing dialog with shareholders and our 2015 Say-on-Pay vote results, we believe our current compensation program for our executive officers, including the changes we made to our compensation programs in 2014, reflect our shareholder’s views and strongly drive our pay for performance objectives.

Executive Compensation Program Structure and Alignment with Performance

The Compensation Committee has implemented a carefully-structured executive compensation program that is tightly linked to long- term shareholder value creation. The program incorporates a combination of short- and long-term forms of executive compensation that are structured to incentivize company performance and the achievement of corporate objectives the Committee believes are critical to driving long-term shareholder value. At the same time, the program incorporates elements that ensure the Company is able to attract and retain top executive talent with the diverse skills in family entertainment, branded-play, consumer products, media and technology which are critical to the successful execution of our strategy and ongoing business transformation.

In support of this linkage to long-term shareholder value creation, a significant portion of the total compensation opportunity for our Named Executive Officers is performance-based and at risk. The following charts summarize the components of our 2015 compensation program for our CEO. The chart below shows that 83% of our CEO’s total compensation for 2015, based on the values reflected in the following Summary Compensation Table, was performance based and at risk.

2015 CEO Pay-At-Risk

Table of Contents

Our CEO’s long-term equity compensation is 100% performance-based. While the value of the CEO’s annual equity compensation is divided approximately evenly between performance contingent stock awards and stock options, for the other Named Executive Officers they receive approximately 25% of their long-term incentive target award in time-based restricted stock units, approximately 50% in contingent stock performance awards and approximately 25% in stock options. The CEO’s compensation does not use time-based restricted stock units to further increase the linkage between earned pay and performance for the CEO.

Table of Contents

Variable Compensation Outcomes

Annual and long-term incentives are based on clear, measurable and objective performance goals that consider the overall financial performance of the Company and the individual contribution of each NEO to that performance.

Performance goals for the annual management incentive awards were established by the Committee early in fiscal 2015 based on the 2015 operating plan and budget approved by the Company’s Board of Directors. The Committee gives careful consideration to selecting metrics that will be used to drive annual business performance, and setting performance objectives that are both challenging but achievable. For 2015, the Committee selected three financial performance metrics to capture the most important aspects of the top and bottom line performance of the Company, in the form of revenues, profitability (operating margin), and cash generation (free cash flow). There is no payout for a given metric if the Company achieves less than 80% of the target performance against that metric. In 2015, given the Company’s strong financial performance, we achieved an aggregate weighted performance payout of 126% of target under the annual management incentive plan. In addition to the corporate financial objectives that are established under the annual performance plan, the CEO, in consultation with the Committee, sets individual objectives for each NEO at the beginning of the year and assesses the performance of the NEOs in achieving these objectives at the end of the year. Performance against these objectives is the key determinant of the individual modifier in the annual incentive. With respect to the CEO’s individual objectives, the Board and Compensation Committee, working together, set these objectives in the beginning of the year and the Board evaluates the CEO’s performance at the end of the year. The table below compares our actual 2015 performance (reflected at the budgeted foreign exchange rates used to set the objectives at the beginning of the year) against the corporate financial performance targets under the management incentive awards.

All numbers are in thousands.

The final award amount for Mr. Goldner under the annual management incentive plan was based primarily on the Company’s financial performance against the targets set forth above (126% of Mr. Goldner’s annual target cash incentive amount under the plan was $2.6 million) and included a 41% strategic modifier for Mr. Goldner’s performance against his individual objectives (adding $1,000,000 to the financial formula award to arrive at the final award amount). This modifier was based on recognition of Mr. Goldner’s leadership and achievement of goals related to Company performance, strategy and investments, during 2015 including:

Table of Contents

Each year the Committee approves annual long-term incentive awards tied to achievement of specified objectives for that year. Target values are based on a designated percentage of each executive’s base salary. For our CEO, these awards are comprised of performance contingent stock awards and stock options (other NEOs also receive time-based restricted stock units). The metrics for the performance contingent stock awards, stated cumulative diluted earnings per share, average return on invested capital and cumulative net revenues over a three-year period, are taken from the Company’s long-term strategic plan, budget and operating plan that have been approved by the Company’s Board.

Under the 2015 performance contingent stock award program, cumulative earnings per share is weighted 34%, average return on invested capital is weighted 33% and cumulative revenue is weighted 33%. Each metric is measured independently and must achieve a minimum of 90% of target over the performance period or no value is earned with respect to that metric. If a metric does not achieve a minimum of 90% of target over the performance period, but one or more of the other metrics achieve this threshold performance, an award is payable based on the achievement of those metrics that do achieve at least threshold performance.

The performance contingent stock awards with a trailing three-year performance period ending 2015 achieved 127% of the target performance. The prior three performance cycles ending in each of December 2012, 2013 and 2014 failed to achieve even a threshold payout and no shares were earned by any officers or employees under any of those contingent stock performance awards. The following table compares the actual results achieved against the targeted goals for each three-year performance period under the three most-recently completed contingent stock performance award periods. Those awards were made prior to the addition of average return on invested capital as a third performance metric.

Strong Compensation Governance Practices

Summary of Our Peer Group Composition

In 2015, the Committee approved changes to the peer group used for our compensation planning and structuring for our CEO to more closely reflect our size and complexity while continuing to align with the Company’s transformation into a global play organization with a robust portfolio of brands. The 2015 compensation program for the CEO reflects alignment with this revised peer group. The revised peer

Table of Contents

group reflects a diverse set of consumer products and entertainment businesses with comparable revenues and market capitalization, those against whom we compete and recruit for talent, and many of which face economic challenges and opportunities similar to those we experience.

Recognizing that the Company has few direct competitors, the Committee selected a peer group for use in providing a market check on CEO compensation that is a mix of direct competitors and companies in related business lines with each having one or more of the following characteristics:

Our goal is to position total target compensation for our CEO within a competitive range of the peer group median. For more information on the peer group used as a market check for the CEO, as well as a discussion of the market checks performed for our other NEOs, please see the discussion beginning on page 38 of this Proxy Statement.

Executive Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

The Committee’s fundamental objectives in our executive compensation program are to:

The Committee believes it is critical to have a robust succession planning and management development process and seasoned talent ready to deploy into key executive positions, and our compensation programs are designed to support these objectives.

The Committee structures the Company’s compensation program in a way it believes appropriately aligns pay with performance without encouraging excessive risk taking or other behavior on the part of executive officers that is not in the Company’s best interests.

Executive Compensation Program Elements

The NEOs receive a mix of fixed and variable compensation. The following charts summarize the various elements of the executive compensation program. Approximately 83% of the CEO’s compensation for 2015, as reported in the Summary Compensation Table, as well as the substantial majority of the compensation opportunity for the other NEOs, was variable and tied to Company performance.

Elements of Compensation Summarized

Table of Contents

Variable and Performance-Based Compensation Elements

The substantial majority of the total compensation opportunity for our NEOs is performance based, including our entire long-term equity incentive compensation program and annual cash incentive program. Performance targets are derived from the Company’s long-term strategic plan and budget and operating plan that have been approved by the Board.

The Committee and the Board set performance targets that they believe will challenge the Company and its executive team to achieve a threshold payout, and require superior performance to achieve a higher than target payout.

When structuring incentive compensation, the Committee identifies the performance metrics it considers most important for driving Company value and return to shareholders, such as net revenues, operating margins, free cash flow, return on invested capital and stock price. The Committee then ties the incentive compensation to performance against those metrics. The Committee has determined that the following forms of compensation and performance metrics are appropriate for aligning executive compensation with performance.

If we do not meet our financial objectives, and if we do not deliver share price appreciation to you, our shareholders, our executives’ realized compensation is reduced dramatically. This reduction is manifested through both reductions in the payouts under our cash management incentive plans and in a reduction in the realized compensation from awards under our equity compensation plans.

Annual Incentive Compensation

All of the Company’s employees participate in some form of annual incentive program. Approximately 30% of the Company’s employees, including all of the NEOs, received management incentive awards with respect to fiscal 2015. The management incentive award is performance based, with payout of awards tied to the Company’s achievement of specific yearly performance measures, as well as individual performance for the year to the extent discussed below.

Structure of the Annual Incentive Plans .    Management incentive awards for the Company’s executive officers for fiscal 2015 were determined under two programs, the 2014 Senior Management Annual Performance Plan (the “Annual Performance Plan”) and the 2015 Performance Rewards Program (the “PRP”). The Annual Performance Plan has been approved by the Company’s shareholders and is intended to allow for the deduction by the Company of the bonuses paid to “covered employees” as defined in Code Section 162(m). Despite certain differences in the two plans, both the Annual Performance Plan and the PRP use the same corporate performance criteria and targets. Under the Annual Performance Plan, awards are structured to provide a range of maximum permissible payouts corresponding to a range of Company performances against the performance targets, with the Committee reserving negative discretion to reduce any such award to any level below the achieved maximum payout as it deems appropriate. The actual achievement against targeted corporate financial performance and attainment of key non-financial goals are the primary factors used by the Committee in exercising this negative discretion under the Annual Performance Plan, as is discussed in detail below.

Table of Contents

The target and maximum awards for each of the NEOs for 2015, as well as the threshold, target and maximum awards for NEOs participating in the PRP Plan, are included in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table that follows this discussion on page 45.

Selecting Annual Incentive Performance Metrics .    The Committee selects performance metrics that will be used to drive short-term (annual) business performance and establishes rigorous yet achievable performance targets for each of those metrics. The Committee established the fiscal 2015 corporate and business unit performance goals in the first quarter of fiscal 2015 based on the Company’s 2015 operating plan and budget approved by the Board. The Committee selected three performance metrics: (i) total net revenues (weighted at 40%), (ii) operating margin (weighted at 40%) and (iii) free cash flow (weighted at 20%).

The Committee believes these performance metrics capture the most important aspects of the top and bottom line performance of the Company, in the form of revenues, profitability and cash generation. The relative weighting among the performance metrics aligns with the relative importance of those metrics, in the Committee’s view, to the Company’s performance and the strength of the Company’s business. If the Company achieves less than a threshold performance of 80% of target against any given metric, the payout achieved for that metric is 0%. Once the achievement of the corporate financial goals is computed, providing the base incentive award payout, the Committee modifies that achieved base payout against target based on the executive’s performance against his or her individual strategic goals to arrive at the final incentive payout to the executive. The modifier applied for performance against individual strategic goals is generally between 0% and 150% of the base corporate financial payout, although the committee can assess a modifier in excess of that range where it deems that warranted by particularly strong individual performance.

Calculating the Annual Incentive Payout .    The following process was used in determining the annual incentive payout for our CEO and other NEOs under the Annual Performance Plan in 2015:

Annual Incentive Plan Targets for 2015 .    The target annual incentive award, associated with achieving performance of the designated financial goals for the Company, for our CEO in 2015 was 150% of earned base salary. Earned base salary in 2015 included one additional paycheck (2015 included 27 bi-weekly pay periods rather than the standard 26 bi-weekly pay periods). This additional pay period, led to the CEO’s earned salary being $1.35M in 2015, as opposed to $1.3M. The additional pay period in a fiscal year happens approximately once every five years. For our other NEOs, the target annual incentive award ranged between 70% and 80% of earned base salary in 2015. The table set forth below provides the 2015 corporate total net revenues, operating margin and free cash flow performance targets established by the Committee at the beginning of the year under the annual management incentive plan, as well as the Company’s actual performance (reflected at the budgeted foreign exchange rates used to set the objectives at the beginning of the year) against those targets in 2015. The Company’s actual weighted financial performance in fiscal 2015 corresponded to a 126% weighted payout against target for the corporate financial goals.

Adjusting for Performance Against Individual Strategic Objectives. The Company’s financial performance on which all employee bonuses are calculated serves as the starting point for the annual incentive award. The Committee then determines how Mr. Goldner and the other NEOs performed in achieving their individual strategic objectives to determine, what, if any, adjustments should be made to the corporate performance factor (126% of target in 2015) to arrive at the final payout amount for each executive, which can be adjusted down to 0% of the corporate base award or up based upon performance against individual objectives. The total 2015 annual incentive payout for the CEO was $3.6 million, which was adjusted down from the maximum $4.05 million payout allowed under the Annual Performance Plan. The 2015 award earned by Mr. Goldner was computed by taking the base 126% weighted corporate payout calculated above, and applying a positive adjustment of 41% for Mr. Goldner’s performance against his individual goals and objectives, and leadership in driving the Company’s achievement of its goals and objectives, as such performance is described starting on page 28 of this proxy statement. The application of the individual performance modifier to the corporate base performance resulted in a final payout to Mr. Goldner of 178% of target under the annual incentive award.

Table of Contents

With respect to NEOs other than the CEO, the Committee considered the recommendations of the CEO as one of the factors in making the final management incentive bonus determinations. The CEO and Committee used the Company’s achievement of 126% of its targets under the management incentive award as a starting point and then adjusted this baseline award for each of the NEOs in accordance with performance against their personal objectives for 2015. The strategic modifier applied to each of the NEOs was based on the individual factors set forth below:

Executive Vice President, Chief Global Operations and Business Development Officer (Mr. Billing) :    The base corporate formula award would have yielded a payout of $493,000. The actual bonus paid to Mr. Billing was $650,000 and was modified based upon his leadership in successfully completing the divestiture of our East Longmeadow, Massachusetts and Waterford, Ireland manufacturing operations to Cartamundi N.V.; oversight of the Company’s global business development team; successfully managing the Company’s global supply chain to deliver innovative product at competitive pricing; success in furthering the diversification of our manufacturing by geography; progress in driving the implementation of the Company’s product to market program; and key role in driving key new business initiatives across the Company.

President, Hasbro Brands (Mr. Frascotti) :    The base corporate formula award would have yielded a payout of $704,050. The actual bonus paid to Mr. Frascotti was $1,000,000 and was modified based upon his key role in driving revenue and profit growth across the Company (excluding the impact of foreign exchange), including in all major business segments; success in driving growth in our Franchise and Partner brands; role in ensuring we deliver innovative play experiences informed by consumer insights across our business to consumers globally, including integrated analog and digital play experiences; leadership in significantly increasing quality engagement with our consumers across all digital touchpoints; delivery of revenue and operating profit growth in the Gaming business; role in strengthening our relationships with our key external partners; continued development of our licensing, publishing and promotions capabilities, and leadership in our delivery of strong content creation and storytelling behind the Company’s brands.

Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer (Mr. Tinga) :    The corporate formula award would have yielded a payout of $475,941. The actual bonus paid to Mr. Tinga was $825,000, modified based upon his key role in driving significant revenue and profit growth across the Company (excluding the impact of foreign exchange), including in all segments and geographic regions; leadership in increasing global revenues 13% absent foreign exchange (4% with the effect of foreign exchange); key role in driving 15% revenue growth in the Emerging Markets absent the impact of foreign exchange; leadership in driving growth in Franchise and Partner brands; success in driving operating profit growth; role in returning growth and profitability to the United States business; role in strengthening our relationships with our key retail customers and in driving our relationships with online retailers; leadership of our retail channel strategy and role in developing strong leadership across the global sales organization. The final award for Mr. Tinga reflects a 150% modifier applied to the base corporate award, along with an additional amount of $111,088 to reflect, in the Committee’s view, superb performance from Mr. Tinga and his global sales organization in driving growth, absent the impact of foreign exchange, across the Company globally. Even with this additional upward modification for personal performance, the total award to Mr. Tinga of $825,000 was significantly below the maximum award allowable under the Annual Incentive Plan to Mr. Tinga of $1.56 million.

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Ms. Thomas) :    Due to the fact that the requirements of Code Section 162(m) do not, by their terms, apply to the compensation of Chief Financial Officers, Ms. Thomas participates in the PRP, rather than in the Annual Performance Plan. Under the PRP, Ms. Thomas’ fiscal 2015 management incentive award opportunity was set to provide for a payout of 70% of earned salary for target performance. A range of payouts as a percentage of target then corresponded to a range of performances against target both above and below 100%. Threshold performance for each given financial metric under the PRP is set at 80% of target performance for purposes of the achievement of that goal contributing to payout of the management incentive award. An 80% achievement of a performance goal under the PRP equates to a 60% payout against that goal. In addition to taking into account Company performance, the PRP also allows for a multiplier of up to 150% of the formula award in recognition of superior performance against individual performance objectives.

The 126% weighted payout against the corporate performance goals in 2015 would have corresponded with approximately 126% of the target payout for Ms. Thomas under the management incentive award for 2015, absent the personal performance modifier. The corporate formula award under the PRP, prior to personal performance adjustments, for Ms. Thomas, would have been $558,751. In determining the actual bonus for Ms. Thomas, as with the other executive officers, the Committee reviewed the performance of Ms. Thomas against her personal strategic objectives and also considered the recommendations of Mr. Goldner. Ms. Thomas was paid a bonus of $750,000 for fiscal 2015, modified in recognition of her: key role in helping to drive the 9% increase in the Company’s operating profit and net earnings; successful management of the Company’s expenses and cash flow, and successful achievement of the Company’s targeted cost savings of $100 million in its underlying business by the end of 2015; role in the Company’s fourteenth consecutive year of delivering underlying earnings per share growth; leadership of the Company’s initiatives to enhance business processes and the efficiency of our shared services structure; contributions to the ongoing return of capital to shareholders, through both the quarterly cash dividend and share repurchase programs; and successful management of the Company’s enterprise risk management (ERM) efforts and global information technology enhancements, including the Company’s product to market initiative.

Performance Metric Adjustments and Exclusions to Accurately Measure Management’s Performance .    At the time the performance goals were set at the beginning of 2015, the Committee provided that certain events that might occur during the performance period would not be taken into account in determining the Company’s performance against these targets. The Committee adjusts for such one- time events as it deems appropriate. Such exclusions included the impact of any acquisitions or dispositions consummated by the Company during the year that had a total acquisition or sale price, as applicable, of $100 million or more, the impact of any major

Table of Contents

discrete restructuring activities undertaken by the Company after the performance goals are set which result in aggregate costs or charges to the Company of $10 million or more, as well as any changes in exchange rates with an impact to revenues of greater than $100 million from the rates in effect at the beginning of the performance period.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation

Long-term incentive compensation is provided in the form of performance contingent stock awards, time-based restricted stock units, and non-qualified stock options, as shown below. In addition, in 2013 and 2014 Mr. Goldner received one-time special restricted stock unit awards (divided into two tranches) which may be earned based on achievement of specified stock price hurdles, as well as continuing to serve as Chief Executive Officer through the end of December 31, 2017.

For 2015, the Committee approved target annual equity award values for each of the Company’s executive officers and other equity eligible employees. Targets are expressed as a percentage of each individual’s base salary which for our NEOs in 2015 were as follows:

This division of award types and targeted award value reflect the Committee’s belief that over the performance period the realization of equity award values should be balanced among achievement of the Company’s longer-term internal financial targets and the Company’s stock price appreciation – as well as, for NEOs, the retention of key executive talent.

Performance Contingent Stock

Performance contingent stock awards provide the recipient with the potential to earn shares of the Company’s common stock based on the Company’s achievement of stated cumulative diluted earnings per share (“EPS”), average return on invested capital (ROIC), and cumulative net revenue (“Revenue”) targets over a three-year performance period beginning January 2015 and ending December 2017 (the “Performance Period”). For stock performance awards granted in 2015, the EPS metric was weighted at 34%, the ROIC metric was weighted at 33% and the Revenue metric was weighted at 33%. Unless the Company achieves at least 90% performance against a metric no shares are earned under the award for that particular metric.

The Company considers the specific target performance levels for ongoing performance periods to be confidential information that would harm the Company if disclosed, as they are based on confidential internal plans and forward-looking expectations concerning the Company’s performance over a multi-year period. As discussed above, the performance targets set forth in the contingent stock performance awards align with the Company’s Board approved budget and operating plan and strategic plan, and were set at levels the Committee determined will challenge the executive team in working to meet the objectives and drive performance. Solid performance from the Company, and in turn its executives, will be required to achieve a threshold payout, and superior performance in managing the Company’s business will be required to achieve a higher than target payout.

Table of Contents

The maximum payout under the contingent stock performance awards granted in 2015 for overachievement of the financial objectives is equal to 200% of the target number of shares.

Assuming at least threshold performance is met for each metric, the actual payout under the performance share award scales between the threshold payout (in 2015 the threshold payout was 25% for net revenues and 50% for earnings per share and return on invested capital) to a maximum (200%) with achievement of the target metric equating to a 100% payout for that metric.

The following table compares the targeted goals and actual performance of the Company (adjusted to eliminate the impact of certain factors designated by the Committee at the beginning of the performance period, such as changes in exchange rates that impact revenues by more than $100 million in the aggregate) under the contingent stock performance awards for the 2013 – 2015 performance period (those awards had just two performance metrics, as ROIC was added as a third performance metric beginning in 2015).

If an officer retires at an early retirement date (at least 55 years old with ten years of credited service with the Company) or a normal retirement date (at least 65 years old with at least five years of credited service with the Company) the contingent stock performance award remains outstanding for its remaining term and at the end of the performance period the retired executive earns a pro-rata portion (based on the amount of the performance period served) of the actual shares earned under the award.

Restricted Stock Units

CEO Special Restricted Stock Unit Award. As more fully described on page 40 of this proxy statement, the Board made a special performance-based restricted stock unit award to Mr. Goldner to further drive the linkage between the Company’s performance and Mr. Goldner’s compensation, and to provide an additional incentive for Mr. Goldner to remain employed with the Company through December 31, 2017. The Special RSU Grant was made in two tranches, the first in April of 2013 and the second in February 2014. Both tranches of the Special RSU Grant were granted at the same time that the Company made its yearly equity awards to other equity- eligible employees.

Other NEO Restricted Stock Unit Awards. The Company uses restricted stock units as a reward and retention mechanism. The restricted stock units granted in 2015 to our NEOs (excluding our CEO) represented approximately 25% of their annual targeted equity award value in 2015 and cliff vest on the third anniversary of the date of grant provided the recipient remains employed with the Company during the three-year vesting period. Pro-rata vesting is provided earlier only in the event of the death, disability, early retirement (with at least 10 years of credited service) or retirement at age 65 (with at least 5 years of credited service) of the executive. All other terminations of employment result in termination of the awards. Beginning in 2016, restricted stock units will vest in three equal annual installments on the first three anniversaries of the date of grant, subject to the recipient’s continued employment with the Company through such vesting dates.

Stock Options

Stock options represent approximately 25% of the targeted annual equity award value for our NEOs, and 50% for our CEO. The options vest in three equal cumulative annual installments on the first three anniversaries of the date of grant, subject to the optionee’s continued employment with the Company through such vesting dates, and have seven-year terms. Options forward vest upon an executive officer retiring at age 65 or older with at least five years of credited service.

The Company does not manage the timing of equity grants to attempt to give participants the benefit of material non-public information. The effective date of equity grants are made in open trading windows following the Company’s release of its financial results. All option grants are made with an exercise price at or above the average of the high and low sales prices of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant.

Fixed Compensation and Benefits

Base Salary

The Company’s philosophy is to review salaries on an annual basis and increase executive base salaries in the event of: (i) increases in responsibility, (ii) to maintain competitiveness with market compensation offered to executives with similar responsibilities, expertise and experience in other companies the Company considers to be comparable to and/or competitive with the Company, or (iii) to recognize continued individual performance and contribution.

In 2015, in recognition of Mr. Frascotti’s new role and increased responsibility as President, Hasbro Brands, pursuant to which he oversees the Company’s global marketing and product development functions, and further aligning him with competitive market

Table of Contents

compensation, Mr. Frascotti’s base salary was increased from $600,000 to $740,000. In addition, Mr. Frascotti’s annual incentive target was increased to 80% and his long-term incentive target increased to 200%. Other increases made to the base salaries for the Named Executive Officers in 2015 were made to remain competitive with companies in the Company’s peer groups for similar positions and were as follows: Ms. Thomas from $567,008 to $650,000; Mr. Billing from $530,010 to $545,910; and Mr. Tinga from 461,538 Euros to 476,924 Euros (from $510,461 to $527,478 using a year-end exchange rate of 1 Euro equals U.S. $1.106 ). Mr. Goldner did not receive any increase in his base salary during 2015.

Benefits

The Company’s officers also participate in certain employee benefit programs provided by the Company that are offered to the Company’s other full-time employees.

The executive officers of the Company are eligible for life insurance benefits on the terms applicable to the Company’s other employees. The Company’s executive officers participate in the same medical and dental benefit plans as are provided to the Company’s other employees.

Company-Sponsored Retirement Plans

The Company provides retirement benefits to its employees primarily through the Hasbro, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan (the “401(k) Plan”) and the Supplemental Benefit Retirement Plan (the “Supplemental Plan”). The 401(k) Plan and the Supplemental Plan, provide for Company matching contributions, and an annual Company contribution of 3% of aggregate salary and bonus. Executive officers are eligible to participate in the 401(k) Plan and the Supplemental Plan on the same basis as all other U.S. Hasbro employees.

The Supplemental Plan is intended to provide a competitive benefit for employees whose employer-provided retirement contributions would otherwise be limited. However, the Supplemental Plan is designed only to provide the benefit which the executive would have accrued under the Company’s 401(k) Plan if the Code limits had not applied. It does not further enhance those benefits.

The amount of the Company’s contributions to the Named Executive Officers under both the 401(k) Plan and the Supplemental Plan, are included in the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table that follows this report. Mr. Tinga is not eligible to participate in the 401(k) Plan or the Supplemental Plan.

The Hasbro, Inc. Pension Plan (the “Pension Plan”), a defined benefit pension plan for eligible Company employees in the United States, and the pension portion of the Supplemental Plan were frozen effective December 31, 2007. Executive officers hired prior to December 31, 2007, continue to participate in the Pension Plan and the pension portion of the Supplemental Plan, which are described starting on page 48 of this Proxy Statement, but will not accrue additional benefits thereunder subsequent to the plan freeze on December 31, 2007.

Description of Pension Benefits for Mr. Tinga

Mr. Tinga participates in the Hasbro B.V. Pension Plan in the Netherlands (the “Netherlands Pension Plan”). Upon becoming a member of the Netherlands Pension Plan on January 1, 1997, an additional payment was made to the plan granting Mr. Tinga an additional one year and two months of credited service, changing his credited service date to November 1, 1995. The Netherlands Pension Plan is described in more detail below. Mr. Tinga was hired by Tonka Corporation on October 1, 1987, which was subsequently acquired by the Company in January 1992. The Company does not have any obligation to pay pension benefits to Mr. Tinga from his service with Tonka.

Netherlands Pension Plan

The Netherlands Pension Plan provides benefits to all employees in service of Hasbro B.V. that are at least 21 years of age.

Effective January 1, 2006, the plan was amended and became a career average pay plan with an annual accrual rate of 1.3% of Pension Base for each year of service. As of January 1, 2015, the plan has been further amended, increasing the annual accrual rate to 1.47% of Pension Base for each year of service from January 1, 2015 to retirement. Accrued benefits are conditionally indexed each year for active employees. Increases of 2% have been granted in each year, except in 2006 when there were no increases granted. Benefits are provided in the form of an annuity with 70% payable to the spouse or partner upon the participant’s death.

Prior to the January 1, 2006 amendment, the plan was a final average pay plan with an formula equal to 1.25% of final average Pension Base per year of service. The final average pay benefits were frozen as of December 31, 2005, with indexation applied from this date as described above.

The Pension Base is defined as Pensionable Salary minus the Offset, where Pensionable Salary is 12 times fixed monthly salary plus holiday allowance plus 13th month salary and the Offset is equal to 100/70 times the state old age pension for a married person. Effective January 1, 2015, as a result of legislative changes in the Netherlands, the annual Pensionable Salary is capped. The

Table of Contents

government mandated pensionable salary cap for 2015 is EUR 100,000 for the Netherlands Pension Plan. Prior to this date Mr. Tinga’s Pensionable Salary under the plan was not capped.

Credited service in the plan is defined as all years and completed months of service up to the date of retirement, with a maximum of 40 years (for participants who joined the plan prior to January 1, 2008) and 44 years for new participants. Effective January 1, 2015, the maximum credited service was increased to 42 years (for employees who joined the plan prior to January 1, 2008) and 46 years for new participants. A new participant with accrued pension benefits at a former employer can transfer their pension benefits into the Netherlands Pension Plan and get additional years of credited service beyond the plan definition.

Effective January 1, 2015, as a result of legislative changes in the Netherlands, the normal retirement age of the plan changed to age 67. Prior to this date, the normal retirement age under the plan was age 65. The pension benefits accrued through December 31, 2014 are guaranteed as unreduced from age 65 and are actuarially increased for retirement after age 65. Plan members are eligible for early retirement from age 55; however benefits are reduced for early commencement and the participant must officially request early retirement six months before the desired retirement date.

Beginning in 2015, Mr. Tinga is eligible for an annual cash payment equal to 17.85% of the amount by which his ending base salary is above the new pension cap of 100,000 Euros to compensate him for the loss of pension value as a result of legislative changes in the Netherlands which cap the pensionable salary at 100,000 Euros. Mr. Tinga is required to pay all taxes on this annual cash payment. The 17.85% make up payment is payable until the earlier of Mr. Tinga’s termination of employment or age 65.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan

Executive officers who are employees of the Company’s U.S. operations are also eligible to participate in the Company’s Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Deferred Compensation Plan”), which is available to all of the Company’s employees based in the United States at or above selected management levels and whose annual base salary is equal to or greater than $120,000. The Deferred Compensation Plan allows participants to defer compensation into various investment vehicles, the performance of which determines the return on compensation deferred under the plan. Potential investment choices include a fixed rate option, a choice that tracks the performance of the Company’s Common Stock, and other equity indices. Earnings on compensation deferred by the executive officers do not exceed the returns on the relevant investments earned by other non-executive officer employees deferring compensation into the applicable investment vehicles. Mr. Tinga is not eligible to participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan.

Perquisites

The Company offers perquisites that the Committee believes are reasonable yet competitive for attracting, retaining and protecting the Company’s executives. The Company reimburses designated executive officers for the cost of certain tax, legal and financial planning services they obtain from third parties provided that such costs are within the annual limits established by the Company. The 2015 annual limit on these costs for the Chief Executive Officer was $25,000 and for Ms. Thomas was $5,000. Mr. Billing and Mr. Frascotti did not receive reimbursement for any tax, legal or financial planning services in 2015. Mr. Tinga receives certain tax services due to his secondment from the Netherlands. The cost to the Company for this reimbursement to the Named Executive Officers receiving it is included in the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table.

Severance and Change in Control Benefits

Beginning on page 51 of this proxy statement there is a discussion of the severance and change in control benefits that may be payable to the NEOs in certain situations, as well as the plans under which those benefits are payable.

Compensation Process

Hasbro’s executive compensation program is structured with input, analysis, review and/or oversight from a number of sources, including:

All final decisions regarding the compensation and retention programs for the Company’s executive officers, including the NEOs, are made by the Compensation Committee. The compensation and retention package for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer is also reviewed and approved by the full Board of Directors without Mr. Goldner being present.

Table of Contents

Each of these compensation elements was described in detail in the preceding pages. In structuring these elements the Company and the Committee review each element on an individual basis, as well as review them in totality as part of an overall target compensation package. This process includes reviewing tally sheets for each of the executive officers which set forth total target compensation for the officer, and within that total summarize the target level for each element and the portion of total target compensation comprised of the various compensation elements.

For the NEOs other than the CEO, the CEO makes recommendations for each individual’s compensation package to the Committee. The Committee discusses these recommendations with the CEO, both with and without the presence of the Company’s Chief Human Resources Officer, the Company’s Senior Vice President, Talent & Rewards and outside compensation consultants. The Committee further reviews and discusses these recommendations in executive sessions, and as part of these discussions the Committee discusses the proposed compensation and retention programs with representatives of its outside compensation advisor, Compensation Advisory Partners.

Peer Group and Benchmarking to the Market

In designing the fiscal 2015 executive compensation program, the Committee and the Company reviewed certain market data as a market check for the proposed executive officer: (i) base salaries, (ii) total target cash compensation (comprised of base salaries and target management incentive awards) and (iii) total target direct compensation (comprised of base salaries, target management incentive awards and target equity awards, combined). This market information is one element reviewed by the Committee; the Committee does not simply set compensation levels at a certain benchmark level or within a certain benchmark range with respect to other companies.

As the Company has developed into a global brand-driven organization, rather than a traditional toy and game manufacturer, the companies with which Hasbro competes for executive talent have broadened considerably and the skills and expertise required of Hasbro’s executives have greatly increased. As a result, the Company now competes with a broad range of consumer products, entertainment and branded portfolio companies in the hiring and retention of employees and executives.

For purposes of establishing a market check for base salaries, total target cash compensation and total target direct compensation for the NEOs, other than Mr. Goldner, in 2015 the Company and the Committee reviewed the 2014 US Mercer Benchmark Database — Executive, as well as Towers Watson’s 2014 Executive Compensation Databank. Both the Mercer and Towers Watson surveys are employed by the Company as a market check against other companies of similar size, in terms of their consolidated net revenues. Within these surveys the Committee and the Company focused on companies in the general industry category. The total sample of companies in the general industry category in each data set is then size adjusted to indicate pay levels for a company with approximately the level of annual revenues of Hasbro. There are hundreds of companies included in the Mercer and Towers Watson data sets. Appendix B to this Proxy Statement contains a listing of all of the companies included in the 2014 US Mercer Benchmark Database — Executive, and Appendix C contains a listing of all of the companies included in the Towers Watson 2014 Executive Compensation Databank.

For Mr. Goldner, the Committee conducted a pay for performance comparison in 2015. The Company’s peer group, which was used in connection with this pay for performance comparison was updated in October 2015. The peer group comprises the following companies:

The Committee reviews the market data as part of assessing the appropriateness and reasonableness of the compensation levels and mix of compensation elements to ensure that the compensation program:

According to market data reviewed by the Company the total target direct compensation (target management incentive award opportunities, base salary and target equity award value) for the NEOs for 2015, generally ranged between the 50th and the 75th percentiles of total target direct compensation at companies in the market surveys reviewed by the Company and the Committee.

Table of Contents

Role of the Independent Compensation Consultant

In reviewing and establishing the proposed fiscal 2015 compensation and retention program for the Company’s executive officers, the Committee received input and recommendations from Compensation Advisory Partners LLC (“CAP”), who served as the Committee’s outside compensation consultant. CAP was retained by, and reported directly to, the members of the Committee. CAP advised the Committee with respect to the Committee’s review of the Company’s 2015 executive compensation programs and provided additional information as to whether the Company’s proposed 2015 executive compensation programs were competitive, fair to the Company and the executives, reflected strong alignment between pay and performance, provided appropriate retention to executives, and were effective in promoting the performance of the Company’s executives and achievement of the Company’s business and financial goals.

The Committee reviewed CAP’s independence relative to the following factors: (i) CAP’s provision of other services to the Company, of which there are none; (ii) the amount of fees CAP receives from the Company as a percentage of CAP’s total revenue; (iii) the policies and procedures of CAP that are designed to prevent conflicts of interest; (iv) any business or personal relationship between Hasbro officers and directors and CAP or its compensation consultants, of which there aren’t any; (v) any Hasbro stock owned by CAP or its compensation consultants, of which there isn’t any; (vi) any business or personal relationship between our executive officers and CAP or any of its compensation consultants, of which there aren’t any; and (vii) any other factors that would be relevant to CAP’s independence from management. On the basis of such review, the Committee concluded that CAP is independent and no conflicts of interest or other relationships exist that may impair CAP’s independence.

Willis Towers Watson was retained by the Company to assist with the preparation of compensation information presented to the Committee in 2015, including tally sheets showing each NEO’s forward- looking target compensation and actual earned compensation, as well as certain compensation tables for this proxy statement.

Other Considerations

CEO Employment Agreement

Effective on October 4, 2012 the Company entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the “Amended Employment Agreement”) with Mr. Goldner. The Amended Employment Agreement replaced the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated March 26, 2010, and the Change in Control Employment Agreement, dated March 18, 2000, as amended (together referred to as the “Prior Agreements”) previously in place. In response to shareholder feedback received by the Company during its 2013 and 2014 outreach programs, the Board and Mr. Goldner mutually agreed to make certain changes to the Amended Employment Agreement in August of 2014.

Set forth below is a description of the Amended Employment Agreement, as it was modified in August of 2014 in response to shareholder feedback. The objectives of the Amended Employment Agreement were to:

Enhanced Pay for Performance Linkage and Retention

The Amended Employment Agreement:

Table of Contents

To further drive the linkage between the Company’s performance and Mr. Goldner’s compensation, and to provide an additional incentive for Mr. Goldner to remain employed with the Company through December 31, 2017, the Amended Employment Agreement provided for the grant to Mr. Goldner of an aggregate of 587,294 restricted stock units (referred to as the “Special RSU Grant”). The Special RSU Grant was made in two tranches, the first in April of 2013 and the second in February 2014. Both tranches of the Special RSU Grant were granted at the same time that the Company made its yearly equity awards to other equity-eligible employees.

Both tranches of the Special RSU Grant have two vesting components, each of which must be satisfied for Mr. Goldner to earn any shares under the award. The first vesting component is based entirely on achievement of specified Hasbro stock price thresholds, with each threshold being progressively higher. For Mr. Goldner to realize the full value from his Special RSU Grant, all four stock price thresholds must be achieved, which would result in the Company’s market capitalization increasing approximately 60% or $3 billion, from October 2012, when the amended agreement was entered. This market capitalization increase does not capture any of the incremental value created by dividends paid to shareholders in the intervening years. The stock price thresholds and the percentage of the shares subject to the Special RSU Grant attributable to achievement of each threshold are as follows:

To achieve the stock price thresholds the average closing price of the Company’s stock must meet or exceed the threshold for a period of at least thirty consecutive trading days by December 31, 2017. The second vesting component requires that, subject to certain termination scenarios which are discussed below, Mr. Goldner must remain continuously employed with the Company through December 31, 2017 to vest in any earned shares under the Special RSU Grant. The August 2014 amendment to the Amended Employment Agreement added a further price requirement to the $56 and $60 tranches of the special restricted stock unit award. Even if those stock hurdles are achieved during the term of the agreement, that actual number of shares earned will be adjusted downward (according to a schedule attached to the back of the 2014 amendment to the Amended Employment Agreement) if the trading price of the Company’s common stock is below those respective thresholds during the thirty-day trading period ending just prior to December 31, 2017, or the earlier termination of Mr. Goldner’s employment in certain situations.

The Amended Employment Agreement provides that Mr. Goldner will participate in Hasbro’s other long-term incentive programs during the term of his employment and will have an annual long-term equity grant target level equal to four (4) times his annualized base salary for each year beginning in 2015. Prior to the August 2014 amendment the target level was five (5) times his annualized base salary.

Other Compensation

The Amended Employment Agreement provided that the Company increase Mr. Goldner’s annualized based salary from $1,200,000 to $1,300,000 beginning July 1, 2013, and in 2013 Mr. Goldner was eligible to receive a management incentive plan bonus based on a target of one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of his earned base salary. Thereafter Mr. Goldner’s base salary, management incentive bonus target and long-term incentive target will be reviewed in accordance with the Company’s compensation policies for senior executives and will be adjusted to the extent, if any, deemed appropriate by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.

Post-Employment Restrictions

The Amended Employment Agreement contains certain post-employment restrictions on Mr. Goldner, including:

If Mr. Goldner violates these restrictions and does not cure such violation, the Amended Employment Agreement provides that he will forfeit and pay to Hasbro the Net Proceeds (as defined in the Amended Employment Agreement) obtained with respect to any unvested stock options, restricted stock units, contingent stock performance awards or other equity that had been accelerated in connection with the termination of his employment by Hasbro without Cause (as defined in the Amended Employment Agreement) or by Mr. Goldner for Good Reason (as defined in the Amended Employment Agreement).

Table of Contents

Stock Ownership Guidelines

Our stock ownership and retention guidelines are rigorous.

An executive has five years to achieve the stock ownership requirement level. Thereafter, during the executive’s employment with the Company they must maintain the required stock ownership. All NEOs are in compliance with the stock ownership guidelines as of Dec. 31, 2015.

Stock Retention Requirement . To further align our executives’ interests with the long-term interests of shareholders, effective March 1, 2014, the Company adopted amendments to the Hasbro, Inc. Executive Stock Ownership Policy (“Stock Ownership Policy”), which included a requirement to retain 50% of any net shares realized from stock vesting or option exercises until the executive’s required ownership level is satisfied.

Anti-Hedging and Pledging Policies. The Company has had a longstanding policy in place that prohibits all directors, executive officers and other employees from hedging or pledging any Company securities.

Realized Pay Table

Our shareholders have indicated that realized pay disclosure provides a useful tool in assessing the alignment of pay and performance. For purposes of helping our shareholders see the strong alignment of pay and performance in our executive compensation program, we are showing a comparison of Mr. Goldner’s reported total compensation to realized pay over the prior three years. All figures in the table are in thousands.

The following section of this discussion explains in detail how realized compensation is computed for purposes of this table. The table illustrates that the reported compensation often exceeds the actual, realized compensation for the executive, and this divergence can become greater as the percentage of the executive’s compensation composed of variable performance-based elements increases.

There can be a significant difference between what is reported for a given year in the compensation tables that follow this Compensation Discussion and Analysis as compensation to an executive officer and the value of what the executive actually realizes as compensation in that year or over time. This difference results from the fact that we are required to include in the reported compensation tables the value of equity awards and changes in pension values and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings for our NEOs at values which are impacted by accounting and actuarial assumptions. Realized compensation is not a substitute for reported compensation in evaluating our executive compensation programs, but we believe understanding realized compensation is important in understanding the impact of the performance components and stock price appreciation components of an award on the value of what an executive ultimately realizes or may receive.

Table of Contents

Total Realized Compensation is computed by:

Taking the Total Compensation Amount reported in the Summary Compensation Table appearing on page 43 of this Proxy Statement, and making the following adjustments:

Compensation and Risk Management

As part of structuring the Company’s executive compensation programs, the Committee (A) evaluates the connection between such programs and the risk-taking incentives they engender, to ensure that the Company is incenting its executives to take an appropriate level of business risk, but not excessive risk, and (B) considers any changes in the Company’s risk profile and whether those changes should impact the compensation structure. To achieve this appropriate level of risk taking, and avoid excessive risk, the Committee structures the compensation program to (i) link the performance objectives under all incentive-based compensation to the strategic and operating plans of the Company which are approved by the full Board of Directors, with the Board ensuring that the goals set forth in such plans require significant performance to achieve, but are not so out of reach that they require excessively aggressive behavior to be met, (ii) provide for a balance of shorter-term objectives or exercise periods (such as the annual cash incentive plan objectives) and longer-term objectives or exercise periods (such as the three-year performance period under the contingent stock performance awards and seven-year option terms) to mitigate the risk that short-term performance would be driven at the expense of longer-term performance and shareholder value creation, and (iii) include stock ownership guidelines which require executives to maintain significant equity ownership during their entire career with the Company, thus linking personal financial results for the executives with the investment performance experienced by the Company’s shareholders. In addition to the analysis performed by the Committee, the Committee also had CAP perform a risk assessment of the Company’s executive compensation programs for 2015 and advise on the appropriateness of the levels of risk presented by those programs and the effectiveness of their design to mitigate risk. As a result of its analysis and the work performed by CAP, the Committee believes the Company’s compensation programs promote appropriate, but not excessive, risk taking and are designed to best further the interests of the Company while mitigating risk.

Tax Considerations

Although the Company considers the tax treatment, including the requirements of Code Section 162(m), and the accounting treatment of various forms of compensation in determining the elements of its executive compensation program and, to the extent it is consistent with meeting the objectives of the Company’s executive compensation program, structures such compensation to maximize the ability of the Company to receive a tax deduction for such compensation, the Company feels strongly that maximizing the performance of the Company and its executives is more important than assuring that every element of compensation complies with the requirements for tax deductibility under Section 162(m). The Company selects performance goals under its variable compensation programs that are intended to be objective within the meaning of the Code, such as achieving certain net revenues, operating margin, free cash flow, earnings per share or ROIC goals. However, in certain situations, such as with our targeted retention grants of restricted stock units, the Company may feel a particular goal, such as retaining a key talented individual, is very important to the Company, even though the form of compensation being used is not considered objective within the meaning of the Code or the associated compensation is otherwise not deductible under the requirements of Section 162(m). The Company reserves the right to compensate executives for achievement of such objectives, or to reflect other individual performance measures in an executive’s compensation, even if they do not comply with the requirements of Section 162(m).

Table of Contents

Executive Compensation

The following table summarizes compensation paid by the Company for services rendered during fiscal 2015, fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2013 by any person serving as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer during any part of fiscal 2015, by any person serving as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer during any part of fiscal 2015, and by the three other most highly compensated executive officers of the Company in fiscal 2015 (to the extent that such person was an executive officer during the year in question).

Summary Compensation Table