UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

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

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (AMENDMENT NO.     )

Filed By The Registrant    ☒

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):

Dear Fellow Hasbro Shareholders,

On behalf of Hasbro’s Board of Directors, we invite you to join us on Thursday, May 17, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time for Hasbro’s 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The meeting will be held at Hasbro’s Corporate headquarters in Pawtucket, RI. We encourage you to closely review the enclosed Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement as you vote your shares for this year’s meeting.

2017 was a good year for your company. Revenues increased 4% to $5.2 billion–the highest revenue level in our history, and operating profit grew 3%. Our cash position increased to $1.6 billion and we generated $724.4 million in operating cash flow. After investing in our business, we returned $427.0 million to shareholders, including $277.0 million in dividends and $150.0 million in share repurchases. Earlier this year, our Board of Directors increased the quarterly dividend 11%, to $0.63 per share, marking the 14th increase in 15 years. The first increased quarterly dividend is payable on May 15, 2018.

The Board is focused on ensuring the organization has the leadership, capabilities and governance to deliver against its long-term strategic objectives. To accomplish this, we are actively engaged with Hasbro’s Senior Management Team to set the strategic priorities and goals for the organization, and to measure success against these goals.

We spend meaningful time with the Hasbro teams to understand the business. Each year we visit at least one Hasbro facility for a multi-day strategic session. In 2017 we spent several days in Burbank, CA with the entertainment, consumer products, gaming and west coast design and marketing teams. Earlier this year, we attended Hasbro’s Investor Update at Toy Fair.

We also work diligently to identify future risks to the business, working with management to ensure Hasbro is prepared and has long-term plans to combat developing challenges. In 2018, we established the Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Committee to provide Board oversight to the increasingly complex and important challenge of managing and protecting data and privacy across the organization.

We take great pride in operating with excellence and integrity, and Hasbro was recently named as a “World’s Most Ethical Company” for the seventh consecutive year.

The Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee provides Board level oversight of the Company’s corporate social responsibility efforts. In 2017 Hasbro added Diversity and Inclusion as a fourth pillar to its CSR efforts. The CSR team has established goals that include growing the number of women in director level and above roles globally across all business areas to 50 percent by 2025 and increasing our U.S. annual hiring rate of minorities to 40 percent by 2025. We know the tone is set at the top and our board represents a diverse set of individuals in experience and background, including having 5 women currently serving on the twelve-member board. Board succession planning is an important role of this committee as they identify and recruit the skill sets to the board that will benefit Hasbro over the long term.

We also benefit from ongoing conversations with our stakeholders, including our investors. This dialogue helps frame our thinking and policies, across a broad range of functional areas including governance, compensation and CSR.

The enclosed proxy provides an in-depth review of our governance and compensation practices. Please read it closely. We greatly appreciate your continued support as we work to enhance shareholder value and profitably grow Hasbro for years to come.

Sincerely,

		Brian D. Goldner Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Hasbro, Inc.				Edward M. Philip Lead Independent Director Hasbro’s Board of Directors

HASBRO, INC.

NOTICE OF 2018 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

By Order of the Board of Directors

Barbara Finigan

Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary

Dated: April 3, 2018

Table of Contents

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE PROXY MATERIALS AND THE ANNUAL MEETING

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 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “2019 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 2019 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.

Selection of Board Nominees

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 chart highlights certain skills, experience and characteristics possessed by the nominees for election to the Board. Further information on each nominee’s qualifications is provided below in the individual biographies.

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 (beyond those indicated in the preceding chart), 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

Kenneth A. Bronfin

Age: 58

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, Mr. Bronfin 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, as well as his experience in strategic planning and corporate finance. Mr. Bronfin’s experience includes serving in a number of executive positions where he was in charge of interactive media and digital businesses and where he led new business ventures, strategic investments and acquisitions in the digital content and media industries. Mr. Bronfin has experience serving on private and public company boards of directors. Mr. Bronfin possesses substantial knowledge, expertise and experience, including operations and business planning experience, in the media, digital products and digital services industries, including expertise in international media, advertising, marketing, and analyzing and anticipating consumer trends.

Michael R. Burns

Age: 59

Michael R. Burns is the Vice Chairman and a member of the Board of directors of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. (a global entertainment company with significant motion picture and television operations), serving in this role since 2000. Lions Gate acquired Starz in December 2016. From 1991 to 2000, Mr. Burns 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 and immersive entertainment across platforms to build global entertainment franchises, in the entertainment industry, including operating and financial expertise in motion picture and television development, production, financing, marketing, distribution and monetization, and expertise in strategic planning for, investing in and building content and entertainment-driven multi-platform businesses. Mr. Burns also possesses expertise in investment banking , corporate finance, and international business.

Hope Cochran

Age: 46

Hope Cochran is a venture partner at Madrona Venture Group (a technology-focused venture capital group). Prior to joining Madrona in January 2017, Ms. Cochran was the Chief Financial Officer of King Digital Entertainment from 2013 to 2016. From 2005 to 2013, Ms. Cochran was the Chief Financial Officer for Clearwire, Inc. Ms. Cochran has been a director since 2016.

The Board has nominated Ms. Cochran for election as a director because of her extensive experience spanning more than 20 years as a senior financial executive in the digital gaming and telecom industries, her knowledge of how to develop digital content businesses, her expertise in managing global teams, and her talent in managing, growing and overseeing global businesses. Ms. Cochran also possesses international business expertise, substantial experience as a public company chief financial officer, and expertise in financial and accounting issues for large public companies. The Board has determined that Ms. Cochran qualifies as an Audit Committee Financial Expert due to her prior experience, including as a Chief Financial Officer of public companies.

Sir Crispin H. Davis

Age: 69

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 Rentokil Initial 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 has nominated Sir Davis for election as a director because of his experience and success 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.

Lisa Gersh

Age: 59

Lisa Gersh is the Chief Executive Officer of Alexander Wang (a global fashion brand), having assumed that role in October 2017. Ms. Gersh served as the Chief Executive Officer of Goop, Inc. (lifestyle publication curated by Gwyneth Paltrow) from 2014 to 2016. 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. Ms. Gersh served as a director of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. from 2011 to 2013. 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 Alexander Wang, Chief Executive Officer of Goop, Inc., and President and Chief Executive Officer of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. Ms. Gersh possesses expertise in business and strategic planning, expertise in the media, retail, brand-driven and entertainment industries, including the cable television and digital industries, and expertise in marketing and branding, media trends and in building global brand-driven businesses. The Board has determined that Ms. Gersh qualifies as an Audit Committee Financial Expert due to her prior experience, including her service on public company audit committees and experience as the Chief Executive Officer overseeing Chief Financial Officers of a public company.

Brian D. Goldner

Age: 54

Brian D. Goldner has served as the Chief Executive Officer of Hasbro, Inc. since 2008, and additionally has served as the Chairman of the Board since May 2015. In addition to being Chief Executive Officer, from 2008 to 2016 Mr. Goldner was also the President of Hasbro. Prior to 2008, 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 The Gap, Inc. and served on the Board of Molson Coors Brewing Company from 2010 to 2016. 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 the 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. 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 storytelling 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.

Alan G. Hassenfeld

Age: 69

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: 58

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 Veritiv Corporation and served as a director of Forward Air Corporation from 2007 to 2017. 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.).

Edward M. Philip

Age: 52

Edward M. Philip served as the Chief Operating Officer of Partners in Health (a non-profit healthcare organization) from January 2013 to March 2017. In addition, Mr. Philip was a Special Partner at Highland Consumer Fund (consumer-oriented private equity fund), serving in this role from 2013 to 2017. 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, and prior to that 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. He is a director of BRP Inc. and United Continental Holdings, 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 25 years of business and management experience, including 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. Mr. Philip possesses expertise regarding internet and technology-based industries, 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 in the operation and management of large multinational organizations.

Richard S. Stoddart

Age: 55

Richard S. Stoddart is the President and Chief Executive Officer of InnerWorkings, Inc. (global marketing execution firm), serving in that role since 2017. Mr. Stoddart was the Chief Executive Officer of Leo Burnett Worldwide from February 2016 to 2017, the Chief Executive Officer of Leo Burnett North America from 2013 to 2016 and the 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 was 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. Mr. Stoddart possesses expertise and experience in branding and brand building, marketing strategy and marketing communications across media platforms, including in traditional advertising, digital advertising and social media, media planning, launching branded content and products, and expertise in media trends and strategic planning for businesses building global content-driven brands. The Board has determined that Mr. Stoddart qualifies as an Audit Committee Financial Expert due to his prior experience, including service on public company audit committees and as the Chief Executive Officer, overseeing the Chief Financial Officer, of a public company.

Mary Beth West

Age: 55

Mary Beth West is the Chief Growth Officer of The Hershey Company, serving in that role since May 2017. Ms. West served as Executive Vice President, Chief Customer & Marketing Officer of J.C. Penney Company from 2015 through March 2017. From 2012 to 2014 she was the Executive Vice President, Chief Category & Marketing Officer for Mondelez International, Inc. Prior thereto, she served as the Chief Marketing Officer for Kraft Foods, Inc. from 1986 to 2012. Ms. West served as a director of J.C. Penney Company from 2006 through 2015. Ms. West has been a director of the Company since 2016.

The Board has nominated Ms. West for election as a director because of her extensive experience and expertise in marketing, brand building, managing global franchises, understanding and applying consumer insights, and in developing compelling retail and sales experiences. Ms. West also possesses expertise in strategic and operational planning and execution, skill in managing global teams and a proven track record in delivering top tier consumer experiences and in building global brands.

Linda K. Zecher

Age: 64

Linda K. Zecher served as the President and Chief Executive Officer, and a member of the Board of directors, of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company, from 2011 to 2016. 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. Ms. Zecher possesses 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. The Board has determined that Ms. Zecher qualifies as an Audit Committee Financial Expert due to her prior experience, including service on public company audit committees and as the Chief Executive Officer, overseeing the Chief Financial Officer, of a public company.

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 14 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.

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 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: Kenneth A. Bronfin, Michael R. Burns, Hope F. Cochran, Sir Crispin H. Davis, Lisa Gersh, Alan G. Hassenfeld, Tracy A. Leinbach, Edward M. Philip, Richard S. Stoddart, Mary Beth West 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 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. Edward M. Philip serves in the role of Lead Independent Director. Mr. Philip has served on the Board since 2002 and currently also serves as Chairman of the Compensation Committee and as a member 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 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.

The Chairman of the Board provides leadership to the Board by, among other things, working with the Lead Independent Director and the Chief Legal Officer and 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 (10th) 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.

Annual Self-Evaluation for the Board and Board Committees

Every year the entire Board, as well as each of the committees of the Board, conduct a self-evaluation process. This process includes each director and each committee member submitting confidential feedback on the performance of the Board, as well as the performance of each committee on which they serve. The feedback is then collected and reviewed and discussed by the applicable committees, as well as the entire Board of Directors. This feedback informs changes the Board and the committees consider making to their processes and areas of review for the next year.

Board Tenure

Although the Company does not have a formal policy with respect to Board tenure, the Board does seek to keep a balance of tenures to provide continuity of understanding of the business, long-term succession planning, and meaningful onboarding of new directors, including educating new directors with respect to the Company’s business, while also providing for new perspectives brought to bear by new Board members. The Board is targeting a mix of tenures in which roughly one-third of the Board members have been on the Board for five years or less, one-third of the members have been on the Board for six to ten years, and one-third of the members have served on the Board for longer than ten years. Although that is a general target, the composition of Board tenures may vary over time for a number of factors, including the availability of appropriate director candidates.

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 21.

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 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 will be subject to a double trigger change in control provision. This

means that rather than vesting automatically upon a change in control of the Company, 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 is 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.

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

At Hasbro, we believe that every day is a chance to do better. We strive to always act responsibly, and in doing so we find smarter ways of doing business. Our deep commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR) reflects our desire to help build a safer, more sustainable world for future generations. It inspires and guides us to play with purpose: To take what we love most about play and entertainment — creativity, innovation, imagination — and make a difference where it matters most. And it makes every part of Hasbro’s business stronger. While our CSR commitments address many areas, we focus on four key priorities: product safety, human rights and ethical sourcing, environmental sustainability, and diversity and inclusion. Another important element of the Company’s CSR efforts is its tradition of supporting children worldwide through a variety of philanthropic programs. In 2017, Hasbro received several prestigious recognitions in this area, including being named #1 on the 100 Best Corporate Citizens list by Corporate Responsibility Magazine. We were named one of the World’s Most Ethical Companies by the Ethisphere Institute, marking our seventh consecutive year to receive this distinction. We are also named one of America’s Most Community Minded Companies by the Civic 50.

Board Meetings and Director Attendance at the Annual Meeting

During 2017, 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 2017 and (ii) the meetings of any committees held during their tenure as members of such committees during 2017. 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 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders attended the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

Board Committees

Audit Committee.    The Audit Committee of the Board, which currently consists of Hope F. Cochran (Chair), Lisa Gersh, Tracy A. Leinbach, Richard S. Stoddart and Linda K. Zecher, held twelve meetings in 2017. The Audit Committee is responsible for the appointment, 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 each of Hope Cochran, Lisa Gersh, Tracy Leinbach, Richard Stoddart and Linda Zecher qualify as Audit Committee Financial Experts, 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), Kenneth A. Bronfin, Crispin H. Davis, Lisa Gersh and Linda K. Zecher, held five meetings in 2017. 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 26 of this Proxy Statement, and the Compensation Discussion and Analysis which begins immediately thereafter.

As is discussed beginning on page 39 of this Proxy Statement, in reviewing the proposed fiscal 2017 compensation and retention program for the Company’s executive officers at the beginning of 2017, the Compensation Committee received input and recommendations from Meridian Compensation Partners LLC (“Meridian”) with respect to executive compensation matters. For their work with respect to advising on the 2017 compensation program, Meridian was retained by, and reported directly to, the members of the Committee. Meridian advised the Committee with respect to the Committee’s review of the Company’s 2017 executive compensation programs and provided additional information as to whether the Company’s proposed 2017 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. Meridian did not perform any other work for the Company in 2017 and in order to maintain Meridian’s independence the Committee has established a policy that Meridian will not provide any services directly to the Company and will only provide services directly to the Committee. Meridian does not have any relationship with the Company which the Committee believes in any way adversely impacts Meridian’s independence. The Committee’s review of Meridian’s independence is discussed in more detail on page 39 of this Proxy Statement.

In addition to the work performed by Meridian directly for the Committee with respect to the 2017 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.

Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Committee.    In February 2018 the Board formed a Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Committee, which will begin meeting formally in May of 2018 and will consist of Richard S. Stoddart (Chair), Kenneth A. Bronfin, Alan G. Hassenfeld and Linda K. Zecher. The purpose of the Cybersecurity and Data

Privacy Committee is to assist the Board in its oversight of the protection of information and assets collected, created, used, processed and/or maintained by or on behalf of the Company, including intellectual property, whether belonging to the Company or the Company’s customers, consumers, employees or business partners, globally, protection of the Company’s customers’, consumers’, and employees’ privacy and personal information, Company’s compliance with all applicable global data privacy and security regulations and requirements, and Company’s other cyber risk management activities, including measures to maintain the availability, integrity and functionality of the Company’s information technology systems, networks, and information assets. The current Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Committee Charter adopted by the Board is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investors — Corporate Governance — Committee Charters.”

Executive Committee.    The Executive Committee of the Board, which currently consists of Alan G. Hassenfeld (Chair), Kenneth A. Bronfin, Hope F. Cochran, Brian D. Goldner, Tracy A. Leinbach and Edward M. Philip, did not meet in 2017. 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.”

Finance Committee.    The Finance Committee of the Board, which currently consists of Kenneth A. Bronfin (Chair), Michael R. Burns, Hope F. Cochran, Alan G. Hassenfeld, Richard S. Stoddart and Mary Beth West, met three times in 2017. 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 Tracy A. Leinbach (Chair), Michael R. Burns, Crispin H. Davis, Edward M. Philip and Mary Beth West, met five times in 2017. 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 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 74 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.

Identifying Director Nominees.    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. The Company is proud that of the twelve director nominees standing for election to the Board at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, five of those candidates are female.

As of December 5, 2017 (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 2018 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 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 Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Committee will assist the Board in its oversight of the protection of information and assets collected, created, used, processed and/or maintained by or on behalf of the Company, including intellectual property, whether belonging to the Company or the Company’s customers, consumers, employees or business partners, globally, the Company’s compliance with all applicable global data privacy and security regulations and requirements, and the Company’s other cyber risk management activities.

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 six 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 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders must be received by the Secretary of the Company at the Company’s executive offices no later than December 4, 2018 (the date that is 120 calendar days before the anniversary of the release date of the proxy statement relating to the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders). The address of the Company’s executive offices is 1011 Newport Avenue, Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02861. Such proposals should be sent to the attention of the Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary and 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 2019 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 2019 Annual Meeting. Except for shareholder proposals made pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the Company will retain discretion to vote proxies at the 2019 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 2019 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.

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 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders must be submitted no later than February 16, 2019. 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 Company’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 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 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 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.

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 Company entered an agreement in 2017 with Lions Gate Films Inc. (“Lions Gate Films”) pursuant to which Lions Gate Films distributed the Company’s MY LITTLE PONY: THE MOVIE motion picture, which was released in October of 2017. Lions Gate Films made commitments with respect to the distribution of the film, including for promotional and advertising spending on the film. Under the Agreement, Lions Gate Films receives a specified distribution fee for distributing the motion picture and remits the gross receipts from distribution of the movie, after deducting the distribution fee and distribution expenses, to the Company. Through the end of the December 17, 2017 reporting period, Lions Gate Films had been paid approximately $1.3 million in distribution fees under this Agreement.

Any agreement between the Company and Lions Gate, or any of its affiliates, is reviewed with and approved by the Company’s Board of Directors, without the participation of Michael Burns. The Company believes the terms of these agreements 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.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee (the “Compensation Committee” or the “Committee”) of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) establishes and oversees 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 grants all equity awards under the Company’s shareholder approved Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Performance Plan. The Company only uses a shareholder approved equity compensation plan. The Committee operates under a written charter, which has been established by the Company’s full 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 the guiding principle behind the Committee’s actions.

The following section of this Proxy Statement, entitled “Compensation Discussion and Analysis”, contains a detailed discussion regarding the objectives of the Company’s executive compensation programs, how those programs drive Company performance, and a review of the processes and program elements used by the Committee to 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 31, 2017.

Report issued by the members of the Compensation Committee as of the Company’s 2017 fiscal year end.

Edward M. Philip (Chair)

Kenneth A. Bronfin

Crispin H. Davis

Lisa Gersh

Linda K. Zecher

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

Executive Summary

2017 Named Executive Officers

The Company’s Named Executive Officers (NEOs) for 2017 are listed in the following table.

Business and Performance Overview

We are a global play and entertainment company committed to Creating the World’s Best Play Experiences. We strive to do this through deep consumer engagement and the application of consumer insights, the use of immersive storytelling to build our brands, world-class product innovation and development of global business reach. We apply these principles to leverage our beloved owned and controlled brands, including our seven Franchise Brands: LITTLEST PET SHOP, MAGIC: THE GATHERING, MONOPOLY, MY LITTLE PONY, NERF, PLAY-DOH and TRANSFORMERS, as well as the licensed brands of our strategic partners. Beginning in 2018, Emerging Brand BABY ALIVE will replace LITTLEST PET SHOP in the Franchise Brands line-up based on the historical strength of the BABY ALIVE brand and the Company’s belief in its potential for future growth and success. We are moving LITTLEST PET SHOP to the Emerging Brands category to allow us to take a more entrepreneurial approach to the future development of that brand. Key Partner brands in 2017 included MARVEL, STAR WARS, DISNEY PRINCESS and DISNEY’S FROZEN, BEYBLADE, DREAMWORKS’ TROLLS and YO-KAI WATCH.

Hasbro fulfills the fundamental need for play and connection for children and families around the world. The Company’s wholly-owned Hasbro Studios and its film labels, Allspark Pictures and Allspark Animation, create brand-driven storytelling across mediums, including television, film, digital and more. These elements are executed globally within the construct of our strategic plan, which we refer to as the brand blueprint. Using this blueprint, we innovate new brands and re-imagine, re-invent and re-ignite our owned and controlled brands through toy and game innovation, immersive content offerings, including television programming, motion pictures and digital content, digital gaming and a broad range of consumer products, ranging from traditional to digital, all informed by storytelling and consumer insights.

Brand Blueprint Toy & Game Product Innovation Digital Gaming STORYTELLING HASBRO BRANDS CONSUMER INSIGHTS Consumer Products GLOBAL MARKETS Developed Developing Emerging Immersive Entertainment Experiences OMNI-CHANNEL RETAIL PARTNERSHIPS

In October 2017 we entered into a relationship with Paramount Pictures Corporation (“Paramount”) to produce and distribute live action and animated films, as well as television programming, based on Hasbro brands over a five-year period. Hasbro’s Allspark Pictures and Allspark Animation will play an active role alongside Paramount in content development and production under this arrangement and we will play a more significant role in financing the films as well. In February 2018 we announced that Saban Brands had named Hasbro as the next global master toy licensee for Saban’s POWER RANGERS property. Under the terms of the license we will design, produce and bring to market a wide variety of toys, games and role-play items for sale beginning in the first quarter of 2019.

Record Revenues.    Following our record revenues in 2016 we again delivered record revenues in 2017 as we continued driving the performance of our Company across brands, business segments and geographic markets. 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.

2017 Financial Performance and Key Accomplishments

Providing value and return to our shareholders is our most fundamental corporate objective. The tables below compare 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, and provide the Company’s annual dividend rate and the year-over-year increases in dividend rates since 2008.

Annualized 1-Year, 3-Year, 5-Year and 10-Year Total Shareholder Return Ending 12/31/2017 1-Year TSR 3-Year TSR 5-Year TSR 10-Year TSR Hasbro S&P 500 Index Russell 1000 Consumer Discretionary Index Annualized Dividends 2008-2018 Annual Dividend Rate % reflects increase in quarterly dividend rate 2012 and 2013 annual dividend rates have been adjusted to move accelerated payment paid in 2012 to 2013 2018 annual dividend rate is projected

The following graph charts the Company’s net revenues (in millions of dollars) for every fiscal year since 2007.

The following tables provide: (i) the Company’s GAAP diluted earnings per share, and adjusted earnings per share for 2017 excluding the impact of U.S. Tax reform, (ii) operating cash flow (in millions of dollars), (iii) operating profit margin and (iv) return on invested capital for each of the five most recently completed fiscal years. Return on invested capital (ROIC) is computed as net earnings divided by the sum of long-term debt (less debt issuance costs), short-term borrowings and shareholders’ equity. U.S. tax reform, passed in December 2017, resulted in a $296.5 million net charge, or $2.34 per diluted share, for full-year 2017. Adjusted earnings per share were $5.46 per diluted share excluding this impact. The 2017 return on invested capital of 17.4% excludes the impact of U.S. tax reform. Inclusive of the impact of U.S. tax reform the 2017 return on invested capital was 10.8%. The operating cash flows for 2015 and 2016 in the table below were restated from amounts previously reported to reflect the adoption of ASU 2016-09.

Net Revenues Diluted Earnings Per Share Operating Cash Flow Operating Profit Margin Return on Invested Capital

The following table provides the amounts we have returned to our shareholders since 2013, in the form of both cash dividends and share repurchases.

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. 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.

Our shareholders overwhelmingly supported our Say-on-Pay votes in the last three years, with favorable votes from 96.7%, 97.4% and 98.1% of the shares voted at the 2015, 2016, and 2017 Annual Meetings, respectively.

In 2017 we again spoke with shareholders who expressed an interest in speaking with management. In addition to speaking with any shareholders who reached out to us, we proactively extended an invitation to all 25 of our top shareholders (who held in aggregate approximately 43% of our outstanding shares) to meet and we had discussions with all of the top 25 holders who accepted our invitation. Based upon our continuing dialog with shareholders and our 2017 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.

E xtension and Amendment of the Employment Agreement with our Chief Executive Officer

The term of Mr. Goldner’s employment agreement as our Chief Executive Officer was set to expire at the end of December 2017. In recognition of Mr. Goldner’s instrumental ongoing leadership in transforming Hasbro from a traditional toy and game manufacturer into a premier global play and entertainment company, the key role he continues to play in bringing the Company’s brand blueprint strategy to life globally through innovative play experiences, engaging storytelling, a comprehensive global consumer products licensing program, digital gaming and the long-term development of relationships with key strategic partners, and his proven track record of delivering strong returns to our shareholders over a sustained period of time, in December 2016 the Board extended the term of Mr. Goldner’s employment agreement to December 31, 2020 and provided for certain changes to Mr. Goldner’s compensation beginning in 2017.

The changes in Mr. Goldner’s compensation package were developed working closely with the Compensation Committee’s outside compensation consultant, Meridian Compensation Partners. The Compensation Committee and Meridian reviewed current compensation programs at our peer companies, and designed Mr. Goldner’s amended compensation plan to provide a highly performance-based total opportunity to Mr. Goldner that recognizes his talent and background, rewards him fairly for delivering strong Company performance, and is market competitive. The terms of this extension were also informed by our ongoing discussions with shareholders. As an example, no additional equity grants were made to Mr. Goldner at the time of this contract extension, as our shareholders expressed a desire to have a competitive annual compensation program serve as the primary driver of executive retention, rather than making significant special retention grants at the time

Cash Returned to Shareholders Dividend and Share Repurchase $ Millions Share Repurchase Dividend Payment

contracts are extended. As part of the extension, the Board and Mr. Goldner agreed to the following amendments to Mr. Goldner’s compensation beginning in fiscal 2017:

CEO Compensation

E xecutive 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-term 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 creativity, innovation, relentless drive and diverse skills in storytelling and entertainment, branded-play, consumer products, media and technology that 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 chart below shows that 81.6% of our CEO’s total compensation for 2017, based on the values reflected in the following Summary Compensation Table, was performance based and at risk.

Fixed Compensation (Salary) Variable Equity Compensation Variable Non-Equity Compensation Change in Pension Value and NQDC Earnings and All Other Compensation Pay at Risk 81.6% 5.7% 12.7% 25.3% 56.3%

The following chart summarize the components of our 2017 compensation program for our CEO and our other NEOs.

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 the value 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.

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 and for the performance contingent stock awards were established by the Committee early in fiscal 2017 based on the 2017 operating plan and budget and the 2018 and 2019 strategic plan approved by the Company’s Board of Directors. The Committee gives careful consideration to selecting metrics that will be used to drive business performance, and setting performance objectives that are both challenging but achievable.

For the annual management incentive awards for 2017, 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 percentage), and cash generation (free cash flow, defined as cash flow from operations minus capital expenditures).

There is no payout for a given metric if the Company achieves less than 80% of the target performance against that metric. The maximum payout for overachievement against a given metric is set at 200% of target, and that maximum is awarded when actual performance reaches 127% of target performance.

In 2017, we achieved an aggregate weighted performance payout of 103% 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 2017 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 annual management incentive awards. The financial results used to compute the payout under the annual management incentive plan exclude the positive impact of foreign exchange and certain other items described on page 45, as the Committee specified at the beginning of the performance period that the impact of those items would be excluded.

All numbers are in thousands,

except for percentages.

In addition to the annual cash management incentive plan, each year the Committee approves annual long-term incentive awards tied to achievement of specified objectives over a period longer than one year. Target award 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 2017 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 at the end of fiscal 2017 achieved 193% of the target performance. Consistent with the intention of the exclusions approved by the Committee during the first 90 days of the performance cycle, the impact of U.S. tax reform and certain accounting changes were excluded from the computation of the achievement of the earnings per share metric. This included the impact of excess tax benefits in the amount of $32.2 million recognized in the statement of operations in 2017 as a result of a new accounting standard issued in 2016, and the net negative impact on earnings from U.S. tax reform in the amount of $296.5 million.

The 2015-2017 award cycle is the first completed cycle with the addition of average return on invested capital as a third performance metric. The prior three performance cycles ending in each of December 2014, 2015 and 2016 achieved performance against target ranging from 0% in 2014 to 192% in 2016. The following table compares the actual results achieved against the targeted goals for each of the three prior three-year

performance periods with the performance during the most recently completed contingent stock performance award period.

E xecutive 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.

Our goal is to position total target compensation for our NEOs within a competitive range around the peer group median that reflects the individual’s performance, criticality to the business, retention risk and future potential. For more information on the peer group used as a market check for the NEOs please see the discussion beginning on page 37 of this Proxy Statement.

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 is 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.

Strong Compensation Governance Practices

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.

Each of the compensation elements is described in detail in the following 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. In 2017 the Committee’s outside compensation consultant was Meridian Compensation Partners LLC.

P eer Group and Benchmarking to the Market

In designing the fiscal 2017 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 play and entertainment 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 companies that focus on immersive storytelling across brands and operate in the entertainment and media industry in the hiring and retention of employees and executives. The 2017 compensation peer group was updated to better reflect this mix of companies with which Hasbro competes for executive talent.

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 2017 the Company and the Committee reviewed proxy data for the top five executives across the revised peer group set forth below. For Mr. Goldner, the Committee conducted both a market check and a pay for performance analysis in 2017. The Company’s peer group was used in connection with the market check and the pay for performance analysis.

In 2017, the Committee approved salary increases for the NEOs as part of its planned review every two years. In addition, the Committee approved annual and long-term incentive target changes effective for 2018. The next market check, absent significant changes in an executive’s role and responsibilities, will be in 2019. No changes were made to Mr. Goldner’s compensation, which is governed by his employment agreement amended in December 2016, in connection with this market check. Actions taken with respect to the other NEOs in 2017 as part of the market check analysis include the following new base salaries, annual bonus targets and equity incentive compensation targets:

In 2017, the Committee approved changes to the peer group used for our compensation planning and reward structure for our NEOs to more closely reflect the importance of storytelling and entertainment to drive consumer engagement with our brands. The 2017 compensation program for the NEOs reflects alignment with this revised peer group. The revised peer group comprises a diverse set of businesses that leverage storytelling to engage consumers as well as creative content and entertainment businesses with comparable revenues and market capitalization to those of the Company, 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 NEO compensation that is a mix of direct competitors and companies in related business lines with each having one or more of the following characteristics:

The 2017 peer group removed Church & Dwight, Clorox, Edgewell Personal Care, Hanesbrands and Spectrum Brands from the prior peer group, due to their limited focus on storytelling to build their brands. In addition, Scripps Network was removed due to its acquisition by Discovery Communications. New peers added to the group, which the Committee believe represent story-led brand-driven companies include Brown-Foreman, Skechers USA, Lululemon Athletica, Under Armour, Estee Lauder and Colgate-Palmolive. Additional companies added which better characterize our investment in media and entertainment include Live Nation, Netflix, Viacom and CBS Corporation. Viacom had been removed from the peer group in 2016 due to irregular Chief Executive

Officer compensation, but was added back in 2017 due to the Committee’s view that CEO compensation is normalizing with the recent leadership change at Viacom. Set forth in the box below is the current peer group we are using for executive compensation.

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 2017, generally ranged at or below the 50th percentile of total target direct compensation for comparable positions at companies in the peer group.

Role of the Independent Compensation Consultant

In reviewing and establishing the proposed fiscal 2017 compensation and retention program for the Company’s executive officers, the Committee received input and recommendations from Meridian Compensation Partners LLC (“Meridian”). Meridian was retained by, and reported directly to, the members of the Committee. Meridian advised the Committee with respect to both the Committee’s review of the Company’s 2017 executive compensation programs and provided additional information as to whether the Company’s proposed 2017 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 Meridian’s independence, relative to the following factors: (i) their provision of other services to the Company, of which there are none; (ii) the amount of fees they receive from the Company as a percentage of their total revenue; (iii) the policies and procedures they have that are designed to prevent conflicts of interest; (iv) any business or personal relationship between Hasbro officers and directors and the entity or the compensation consultants at the entity working for the Committee, of which there aren’t any; (v) any Hasbro stock owned by the entity or any of its compensation consultants working for the Committee, of which there isn’t any; (vi) any business or personal relationship between our executive officers and the entity or any of its compensation consultants working for the Committee, of which there aren’t any; and (vii) any other factors that would be relevant to the consultant’s independence from management. On the basis of such review, the Committee concluded that Meridian was independent and no conflicts of interest or other relationships exist that may impair their independence during their service to the Committee.

Willis Towers Watson was retained by the Company to assist with the preparation of compensation information presented to the Committee in 2017, 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.

Executive Compensation Program Elements

The NEOs receive a mix of fixed and variable compensation. The following discussion summarizes the various elements of the executive compensation program. Approximately 81.6% of the CEO’s compensation for 2017, as reported in the Summary Compensation Table, as well as the substantial majority of the compensation opportunity for each of the other NEOs, was variable and tied to Company performance.

Elements of Compensation Summarized

V ariable 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, earnings per share, 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 Company employees participate in some form of annual incentive program. Approximately 28% of the Company’s employees, including all NEOs, received management incentive awards with respect to fiscal 2017. 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 2017 were determined under two programs, the 2014 Senior Management Annual Performance Plan (the “Annual Performance Plan”) and the 2017 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 other key financial and 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.

The target awards for each of the NEOs for 2017, as well as the threshold, target and maximum awards for the NEO participating in the PRP Plan, are included in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table that follows this discussion on page 58.

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 2017 corporate and business unit performance goals in the first quarter of fiscal 2017 based on the Company’s 2017 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%). Free cash flow is computed as cash flow from operations, less capital expenditures.

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 2017:

Annual Incentive Plan Targets for 2017.    The target annual incentive award, associated with achieving performance of the designated financial goals for the Company, for our CEO in 2017 was 175% of earned base salary. For our other NEOs, the target annual incentive award ranged between 70% and 90% of earned base salary in 2017.

The table set forth below provides the 2017 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 2017. The Company’s actual weighted financial performance in fiscal 2017 corresponded to a 103% weighted payout against target for the corporate financial goals.

Dollar figures are in thousands.

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 (103% of target in 2017) to arrive at the final payout amount for each executive, which can be adjusted down to 0% of the corporate base award or up to +50% of formula based upon performance against individual objectives.

The total 2017 annual management incentive earned by Mr. Goldner was $3 million. The annual management incentive award paid to Mr. Goldner for 2017 was based first on the Company’s financial performance against the revenue, operating margin and free cash flow targets set forth above. 103% of Mr. Goldner’s annual target

Target Award (Earned base salary) Corporate Financial Achievement (0% - 200%) Individual Strategic Goals Generally (0% - 150%) Final Payout

cash incentive under the plan was $2,703,750. The final management incentive paid to Mr. Goldner included a 11% individual performance modifier, to this base award, reflecting Mr. Goldner’s performance against his other individual performance objectives under the plan. This individual performance modifier added $296,250 to the base financial formula award to arrive at the final management incentive award for Mr. Goldner of $3,000,000, which was 114% of target. Mr. Goldner’s individual objectives for 2017 included the following, which were in addition to the financial performance outlined above:

Additional Objectives for Mr. Goldner in 2017:

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 103% 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 2017. The strategic modifier applied to each of the NEOs was based on the individual factors set forth below:

President (Mr. Frascotti):    The base corporate formula award would have yielded a payout of $831,181. The actual bonus paid to Mr. Frascotti was $900,000 and was modified based upon his:

Executive Vice President and Chief Content Officer (Mr. Davis):     The base corporate formula award would have yielded a payout of $553,368. The actual bonus paid to Mr. Davis was $650,000 and was modified based upon his:

Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer (Mr. Tinga):    The corporate formula award would have yielded a payout of $499,335. The actual bonus paid to Mr. Tinga was $550,000, modified based upon his:

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 2017 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 103% weighted payout against the corporate performance goals in 2017 would have corresponded with 103% of the target payout for Ms. Thomas under the management incentive award for 2017, absent the personal performance modifier. The corporate formula award under the PRP, prior to personal performance adjustments, for Ms. Thomas, would have been $540,750. In determining the actual bonus for Ms. Thomas, as with the other executive officers, the Committee reviewed the performance of Ms. Thomas against her individual objectives and also considered the recommendations of Mr. Goldner. Ms. Thomas was paid a bonus of $850,000 for fiscal 2017, modified in recognition of her:

Performance Metric Adjustments and Exclusions to Accurately Measure Management’s Performance. At the time the performance goals were set at the beginning of 2017, 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 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, changes to the US tax code that would impact cash flow, impact operating profit and/or tax expense by more than $25 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 could be earned based on achievement of four specified stock price hurdles, as well as Mr. Goldner continuing to serve as Chief Executive Officer, through the end of December 31, 2017. These awards were made pursuant to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the Amended Employment Agreement) entered between the Company and Mr. Goldner in October 2012. The restricted stock unit awards were earned and vested on December 31, 2017. Mr. Goldner met both the continued service requirement and achieved the four stock price hurdles set back in October 2012 ($45, $52, $56, $60). Hasbro’s stock closed at $90.89 per share on December 29, 2017, the last trading day of 2017. In addition to meeting the stock price hurdles, this satisfied the lookback requirement on 50% of the award which was added (in response to shareholder feedback on Say on Pay) as part of Mr. Goldner’s August 5, 2014 employment agreement amendment. On December 31, 2017, 587,294 shares were paid to Mr. Goldner pursuant to the vesting of these stock awards. The Company notes that on October 4, 2012, the day the Amended Employment Agreement was executed, the closing price of the Company’s stock was $37.46. From that date to December 29, 2017 the stock price increased 143%.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation Allocation CEO Other NEOs Options 50% PSAs 50% Options 25% PSAs 50% Restricted Stock 25%

For 2017, 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 2017 were as follows: