DEF 14A of Deere & Co, Jan 14, 2026

DEF 14A of Deere & Co

Filed Jan 14, 2026 · FY20250001104659-26-003618

Open on EDGAR

  1. Annual Election of Directors

    Annual Election of Directors

  2. Annual Election of Directors

    | The Board of Directors unanimously recommends that you vote FOR each of the 10 director nominees. |

  3. Annual Election of Directors

    | 10 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  4. Annual Election of Directors

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  5. How We Identify and Evaluate Director Nominees

    How We Identify and Evaluate Director Nominees The Corporate Governance Committee of the Board is responsible for screening candidates and recommending director nominees to the full Board. The Board nominates the slate of directors for election at each Annual Meeting of Shareholders and elects directors to fill vacancies or newly created Board seats. The Corporate Governance Committee considers candidates recommended by shareholders, directors, officers, and third-party search firms. Third-party search firms may be used to identify and provide information on director candidates. If you wish to recommend a candidate for consideration by the Corporate Governance Committee, please send a proposal in writing to our Corporate Secretary at the address of our principal executive offices. If you wish to nominate a director, please review the procedures described in the Additional Information section under “2027 Shareholder Proposals and Nominations” in this Proxy Statement. It is the policy of the Corporate Governance Committee to evaluate all candidates in the same manner, regardless of the source of the recommendation. Deere’s Corporate Governance Policies, which are described in the “Corporate Governance” section of this Proxy Statement, establish the general criteria and framework for assessing director candidates. In particular, the Corporate Governance Committee considers each nominee’s skills, experience, character, leadership, and background, as well as legal and regulatory requirements, in the context of an assessment of the particular needs of the Board at the time. The Corporate Governance Committee also considers qualitative criteria, such as alignment with Deere’s core values, when evaluating director candidates. The Corporate Governance Committee assesses all these criteria when considering information about the nominee provided by the recommending party, the nominee, third parties, and other sources. In connection with its annual self-assessment, the Corporate Governance Committee also assesses each nominee in relation to the criteria set forth in the Corporate Governance Policies and each nominee’s affiliations and commitments in accordance with the Board’s time commitment and overboarding policies. We believe a Board composed of members with complementary skills, qualifications, experiences, and attributes is best equipped to meet its responsibilities effectively. Any director who experiences a material change in occupation, career, or principal business activity, including retirement, must tender a resignation to the Board. Upon recommendation from the Corporate Governance Committee, the Board may decline to accept any such resignation. Directors must retire from the Board upon the first annual meeting of shareholders after reaching the age of 75, except as approved by the Board. In accordance with this policy, Michael O. Johanns will not stand for re-election and will retire from the Board effective as of the Annual Meeting.

  6. Director Nominees

    Director Nominees The Corporate Governance Committee has recommended, and the Board has nominated, each of Leanne G. Caret, Tamra A. Erwin, R. Preston Feight, Alan C. Heuberger, L. Neil Hunn, John C. May, Gregory R. Page, Brian Sikes, Dmitri L. Stockton, and Sheila G. Talton to be elected for terms expiring at the Annual Meeting in 2027. Each of the nominees, other than Mr. Sikes, who was appointed to the Board as of December 4, 2025, has been previously elected by our shareholders. Mr. Sikes was initially recommended to the Corporate Governance Committee by another director. Effective with Mr. Johanns’ retirement as of the Annual Meeting, the size of the Board will be reduced to 10 directors. We are confident that this talented slate of nominees will continue to provide exceptional oversight and leadership in the year ahead. We discuss the nominees’ professional backgrounds and qualifications in the brief biographies that follow. Based on these qualifications and skills, the Board has concluded that each of these nominees should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors.

  7. Director Nominees

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 11 |

  8. Director Nominees

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  9. Board skills matrix

    Board skills matrix The Corporate Governance Committee believes that our Board is most effective when it embodies a diverse set of skills and experiences. To maintain an effective Board, the Corporate Governance Committee considers how each nominee’s particular skills, experience, character, leadership, and background will contribute to Deere’s long-term success. The table below shows the range of skills and experiences of the Board nominees and how those align with Deere’s business and its strategy.

  10. Board skills matrix

    | | Skill / Qualification | CARET | ERWIN | FEIGHT | HEUBERGER | HUNN | MAY | PAGE | SIKES | STOCKTON | TALTON | | | Executive Experience Directors with significant leadership experience enhance the Board’s ability to oversee company leadership and offer insight into corporate strategy, culture, and leading a large organization | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | | | Manufacturing Experience Directors who have worked with manufacturing organizations understand industry challenges and offer valuable perspective for product development and manufacturing operations | ■ | | ■ | | ■ | ■ | ■ | | | | | | INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE Directors with international experience understand diverse business environments, cultural perspectives, and economic conditions that can present challenges in global business operations, trade, and commerce | ■ | ■ | ■ | | | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | | | GOVERNMENT / ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE Directors with experience in government or academia offer thought leadership on regulatory issues, government affairs, and present-day issues affecting business | | ■ | | | | | | ■ | | | | | AGRICULTURE EXPERIENCE Directors who have experience in agriculture understand the impact of growing conditions and economic factors on the industry and offer insights on strategy for business operations | | | | ■ | | ■ | ■ | ■ | | | | | TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION experience Directors with expertise in technology fields offer insights on technology innovations (including artificial intelligence), digital solutions, innovative business models, data analytics, e-commerce applications, and cybersecurity risks | ■ | ■ | ■ | | ■ | ■ | | | | ■ | | | FINANCE EXPERIENCE Directors with financial expertise enhance oversight of financial reporting and control, financial performance and shareholder returns, and long-term strategy | ◯ | ■ | ◯ | ◯ | ■ | | ◯ | ■ | ◯ | | | | RISK MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE Directors with experience managing risks in business operations enhance oversight into evaluating, tracking, and mitigating the most significant risks facing the company | ■ | | ■ | ■ | ■ | | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | | | CORPORATE GOVERNANCE EXPERIENCE Directors with experience in corporate governance through board experience or executive employment understand the function of a board and offer insights into governance best practices | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ |

  11. Board skills matrix

    ◯ = Audit committee financial expert under SEC rules

  12. Board skills matrix

    | 12 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  13. Board skills matrix

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  14. Board skills matrix

    | LEANNE G. CARET | | Independent I Director Since: 2021 I Age: 59 | | Committees: Audit Review (Chair), Executive, Finance | Retired Executive Vice President and Senior Advisor of The Boeing Company and Former President and Chief Executive Officer of Boeing Defense, Space & Security | | | | Past Positions at The Boeing Company (aircraft, defense, intelligence and satellite systems and services, and related financing) | | | | ◾ Executive Vice President and Senior Advisor – April 2022 to December 2022 ◾ Executive Vice President and President and Chief Executive Officer of Boeing Defense, Space & Security – 2016 to March 2022 ◾ President, Global Services & Support – 2015 to 2016 ◾ Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance, Defense, Space & Security – 2014 to 2015 | ◾ Vice President and General Manager, Vertical Lift – 2013 to 2014 ◾ Vice President, H-47 Programs, Vertical Lift – 2009 to 2013 ◾ General Manager, Global Transport & Executive Systems – 1998 to 2009 Other Current Directorships ◾ Raytheon Technologies Corporation (RTX) |

  15. Board skills matrix

    | Key Experience and Qualifications ◾ Strong leader in manufacturing and high-technology industries. Draws upon her experience as Executive Vice President of The Boeing Company, President and Chief Executive Officer of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, and as an officer of other global operations. ◾ Varied functional experiences in global business operations. Practical experience in global supply chain operations, financial management, investor relations, business acquisitions and integrations, government contracting, human capital, and other areas of oversight developed from serving as an executive officer of The Boeing Company. ◾ Valuable perspective on robust application of technology. Over 25 years of experience in digital engineering and advanced manufacturing solutions, the development of advanced and new technologies, highly complex and integrated systems, and automation. |

  16. Board skills matrix

    | TAMRA A. ERWIN | | Independent I Director Since: 2020 I Age: 61 | | Committees: Corporate Governance (Chair), Compensation, Executive | Retired Senior Advisor of Verizon Communications Inc. and Former Executive Vice President and Group Chief Executive Officer of Verizon Business Group | | | | Past Positions at Verizon Communications Inc. (communications, information, and entertainment products and services) | | | | ◾ Senior Advisor to the Chief Executive Officer – July 2022 to September 2022 ◾ Executive Vice President and Group Chief Executive Officer of Verizon Business Group – 2019 to June 2022 ◾ Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Verizon Wireless Group – 2016 to 2019 ◾ Group President, Consumer and Mass Business Markets Sales and Service – 2015 to 2016 | ◾ President, National Operations, Wireline/Consumer and Mass Business Markets – 2013 to 2015 ◾ Corporate Chief Marketing Officer – 2012 to 2013 ◾ President, West Area – 2008 to 2011 Other Current Directorships ◾ F5, Inc. (FFIV) ◾ Xerox Holdings Corporation (XRX) |

  17. Board skills matrix

    | Key Experience and Qualifications ◾ Demonstrated leader with a multi-disciplinary background. Leverages her experience as a senior executive and as Executive Vice President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Operating Officer of Verizon Group businesses. ◾ Extensive understanding of product and service development. Widespread experience includes marketing, sales, strategic planning, profit and loss management, customer service operations, customer relations, and human resources developed from her leadership experience as an executive officer of Verizon Communications Inc. ◾ Significant experience integrating advanced communications and technology. Demonstrated fluency with scaling innovative technology products and services, enabling connectivity, and driving transformation across complex organizations. |

  18. Board skills matrix

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 13 |

  19. Board skills matrix

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  20. Board skills matrix

    | R. PRESTON FEIGHT | | Independent I Director Since: 2024 I Age: 58 | | Committees: Audit Review, Corporate Governance | Chief Executive Officer of PACCAR Inc (since 2019) | | | | Past Positions at PACCAR Inc (commercial trucks and vehicles, aftermarket parts, financial services) | | | | ◾ Executive Vice President – 2018 to 2019 ◾ Vice President and President, DAF Trucks – 2016 to 2018 ◾ Vice President and General Manager, Kenworth Truck Company – 2015 to 2016 ◾ Assistant General Manager, Marketing and Sales, Kenworth Truck Company – 2012 to 2014 ◾ Chief Engineer, Kenworth Truck Company – 2008 to 2012 | Other Current Directorships ◾ PACCAR Inc (PCAR) | | Key Experience and Qualifications ◾ Executive leader in manufacturing. Draws upon his leadership experience as PACCAR Inc’s Chief Executive Officer. ◾ Deep manufacturing experience in global business operations. Experience with a global manufacturing organization enables thorough understanding of challenges and growth opportunities through the evolution and integration of technology advancements including alternative propulsion, connectivity, and autonomy. ◾ Valuable perspective on business strategy. Over 30 years of experience in engineering, management, and leadership, including oversight of manufacturing, aftermarket, and captive finance, enables key insights for the Board. | | |

  21. Board skills matrix

    | ALAN c. heuberger | | Independent I Director Since: 2016 I Age: 52 | | Committees: Finance (Chair), Audit Review, Executive | Senior Investment Manager, Cascade Asset Management Company (formerly BMGI) (since 2021) | | | | Past Positions at BMGI (private investment management) | | | | ◾ Senior Manager — 2004 to 2021 | ◾ Investment Analyst — 1996 to 2004 | | Key Experience and Qualifications ◾ Leadership in investment management industry. Over 25 years of experience in the investment management industry including in his current role as a Senior Investment Manager of Cascade Asset Management Company. ◾ Financial expertise and experience in governance, strategy, and other areas of oversight. Broad oversight experience from service as a member of the boards of directors and advisors of various asset management entities and privately-held corporations. ◾ Strategic thinker with agriculture industry knowledge. Deep familiarity with the agriculture industry through his analysis of investments, asset management, finance, and economics. | | |

  22. Board skills matrix

    | 14 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  23. Board skills matrix

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  24. Board skills matrix

    | L. NEIL HUNN | | Independent I Director Since: 2023 I Age: 53 | | Committees: Compensation (Chair), Executive, Finance | President and Chief Executive Officer, Roper Technologies, Inc. (software, services, technology-enabled products and solutions) (since 2018) | | | | Past Positions ◾ Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Roper — 2017 to 2018 ◾ Group Vice President of Roper — 2011 to 2018 ◾ President of MedAssets, Inc. — 2009 to 2011 ◾ Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of MedAssets, Inc. (Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)) — 2007 to 2010 | Other Current Directorships ◾ Roper Technologies, Inc. (ROP) | | Key Experience and Qualifications ◾ Executive leadership in the technology industry. Draws upon his service as President and Chief Executive Officer of Roper Technologies, Inc. and as an officer of other technology and consulting companies. ◾ Deep expertise in innovative technologies. Over two decades of experience in software, technology, and technology-enabled products. ◾ Experience executing business model transformation. Extensive understanding of capital deployment and management talent development to drive structural change, alongside his deep expertise in technology, SaaS businesses, and cybersecurity. | | |

  25. Board skills matrix

    | JOHN C. MAY | | Director Since: 2019 I Age: 56 | | Committees: Executive (Chair) | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President of Deere & Company (since 2020) | | | | Past Positions at Deere & Company | | | | ◾ Chief Executive Officer and President — November 2019 to May 2020 ◾ President and Chief Operating Officer — April 2019 to November 2019 ◾ President, Worldwide Agriculture & Turf Division, Global Harvesting and Turf Platforms, Ag Solutions (Americas and Australia) — 2018 to 2019 ◾ President, Agricultural Solutions & Chief Information Officer — 2012 to 2018 | ◾ Vice President, Agriculture & Turf Global Platform, Turf & Utility — 2009 to 2012 ◾ Factory Manager, John Deere Dubuque Works — 2007 to 2009 ◾ Director, China Operations — 2004 to 2007 Other Current Directorships ◾ Ford Motor Company (F) | | Key Experience and Qualifications ◾ Engaged and innovative leader who exemplifies our Smart Industrial Operating Model. Fifteen years of key leadership roles at Deere position him to lead the execution of our strategy, accelerate the integration of advanced technology with Deere’s legacy of manufacturing excellence, and provide the Board with in-depth visibility into these matters. ◾ Visionary with deep business and industry expertise. Draws upon his experience with Deere’s businesses including his management of our global operations and his knowledge of precision agriculture and information technology in leading Deere toward the future. ◾ Extensive familiarity with Deere operations. Leverages his understanding of the complexities of Deere’s global operations through his knowledge in the areas of leadership, manufacturing, and information technology, among others, to offer critical insight and perspective to our Board. | | |

  26. Board skills matrix

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 15 |

  27. Board skills matrix

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  28. Board skills matrix

    | GREGORY R. PAGE | | Independent I Director Since: 2013 I Age: 74 | | Committees: Audit Review, Finance | Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cargill, Incorporated | | | | Past Positions at Cargill, Incorporated (agricultural, food, financial, and industrial products and services) ◾ Executive Director — 2015 to 2016 ◾ Executive Chairman — 2013 to 2015 ◾ Chairman and Chief Executive Officer —2011 to 2013 ◾ Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President — 2007 to 2011 | Other Current Directorships ◾ Chairman of Corteva, Inc. (CTVA) ◾ Chairman of Eaton Corporation plc (ETN) Previous Directorships ◾ 3M Company (MMM) | | Key Experience and Qualifications ◾ Executive and agricultural industry leader. Demonstrated leadership through his service as Chairman of Corteva, Inc., Chairman of Eaton Corporation plc, and retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cargill, Incorporated. ◾ Extensive oversight experience from board service. Experience in oversight of auditing, financial reporting, corporate governance, and sustainability from service as a member of the boards of directors of global public corporations. ◾ Robust perspective on the agricultural economy. Leverages his experience with commodities, agriculture, operating processes, finance, and economics to provide beneficial viewpoints. | | |

  29. Board skills matrix

    | Brian Sikes | | Independent I Director Since: 2025 I Age: 57 | | Committees: Compensation, Corporate Governance | Board Chair and Chief Executive Officer of Cargill, Incorporated (since 2024) | | | | Past Positions at Cargill, Incorporated (agricultural, food, financial, and industrial products and services) | | | | ◾ Chief Executive Officer — 2023 to present ◾ Chief Operating Officer — 2021 to 2022 ◾ Chief Risk Officer and Protein & Salt Corporate Senior Vice President — 2018 to 2021 ◾ President, North America Protein — 2014 to 2018 ◾ Global Director, Human Resources Talent Center of Expertise — 2013 to 2014 | Other Current Directorships ◾ Cargill, Incorporated | | Key Experience and Qualifications ◾ Executive leader in agriculture. Draws upon his depth of expertise in the agriculture industry along with leadership and governance experience as Board Chair and Chief Executive Officer of Cargill, Incorporated. ◾ Deep understanding of business strategy and operations. Leverages over 30 years of experience in leadership, management, and operations, including oversight of shifting demands, supply chain, and finance. ◾ Strategic decision-maker with significant industry experience. Extensive agriculture expertise and comprehensive understanding of industry dynamics enables valuable insights and perspectives for the Board. | | |

  30. Board skills matrix

    | 16 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  31. Board skills matrix

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  32. Board skills matrix

    | DMITRI L. STOCKTON | | Independent I Director Since: 2015 I Age: 61 | | Committees: Audit Review, Finance | Retired Special Advisor to Chairman and Senior Vice President of General Electric Company and Former Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of GE Asset Management Incorporated | | | | Past Positions ◾ Special Advisor to the Chairman and Senior Vice President of GE (power and water, aviation, oil and gas, healthcare, appliances and lighting, energy management, transportation) — 2016 to 2017 ◾ Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of GE Asset Management Incorporated (global investments) and Senior Vice President of General Electric Company — 2011 to 2016 ◾ President and Chief Executive Officer of GE Capital Global Banking and Senior Vice President of General Electric Company — 2008 to 2011 | Other Current Directorships ◾ Ryder System, Inc. (R) ◾ Target Corporation (TGT) Previous Directorships ◾ Smurfit WestRock plc (SW) ◾ Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (SWK) ◾ WestRock Company (WRK) |

  33. Board skills matrix

    | Key Experience and Qualifications ◾ Proven leader with breadth of experience in finance. Over 15 years of leadership experience through his service as Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of GE Asset Management Incorporated and as a senior leader of other business operations. ◾ Deep corporate governance and board oversight experience. Experience with the oversight of risk management, governance, and regulatory compliance from serving as a member of the boards of directors and trustees of global asset management, investment, and employee benefit entities. ◾ Critical thinker with relevant industry experience. Strategically applies his subject matter knowledge of finance, banking, and asset management to offer valuable insights. |

  34. Board skills matrix

    | SHEILA G. TALTON | | Independent I Director Since: 2015 I Age: 73 | | Committees: Compensation, Corporate Governance | President and Chief Executive Officer of Gray Matter Analytics (healthcare analytics for healthcare providers, payers, and pharma companies) (since 2013) | | | | Past Positions ◾ President and Chief Executive Officer of SGT Ltd. (strategy and technology consulting services) — 2011 to 2013 ◾ Vice President of Cisco Systems, Inc. (information technology and solutions) — 2008 to 2011 | Other Current Directorships ◾ OGE Energy Corp. (OGE) ◾ Sysco Corporation (SYY) | | Key Experience and Qualifications ◾ Strong leader with a dedicated tenure in the technology industry. Draws upon her experience as President and Chief Executive Officer of Gray Matter Analytics and as an officer of other global technology and consulting firms. ◾ Extensive experience with board oversight areas of focus. Experience with compensation, governance, risk management, and other areas developed from service as a member of the boards of directors of global public corporations. ◾ Valuable perspective on the application of technology. Leverages over 15 years of experience in technology industries to provide insights on data analytics and global strategies. | | |

  35. Board skills matrix

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 17 |

  36. Board skills matrix

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  37. Compensation of Directors

    Compensation of Directors We have structured the compensation of our nonemployee directors with the following objectives in mind:

  38. Compensation of Directors

    | Recognize the substantial investment of time and expertise necessary for the directors to discharge their duties to oversee Deere’s global affairs | Align the directors’ interests with the long-term interests of our shareholders | Ensure that compensation is easy to understand and is regarded positively by our shareholders and employees |

  39. Compensation of Directors

    We pay nonemployee directors an annual retainer. Committee chairs and the Lead Director receive additional fees for performing those responsibilities. Directors who are employees receive no additional compensation for serving on the Board. We do not pay committee member retainers or meeting fees. We do reimburse directors for expenses related to meeting attendance. To supplement their cash compensation and align their interests with those of our shareholders, nonemployee directors are awarded restricted stock units (RSUs) after each Annual Meeting. A person who serves a partial term as a nonemployee director will receive a prorated retainer and a prorated RSU award. Compensation for nonemployee directors is reviewed every year by the Corporate Governance Committee. Management reviews trends in director compensation and data regarding the amounts and types of compensation paid to nonemployee directors at the companies in Deere’s compensation peer group and presents this information to the Corporate Governance Committee. All decisions regarding nonemployee director compensation are recommended by the Corporate Governance Committee and approved by the Board. The Corporate Governance Committee reviewed compensation for nonemployee directors in August 2025 and did not recommend any changes. The following chart describes the amounts we pay and the value of awards we grant to nonemployee directors as approved by the Board at its August 2024 meeting:

  40. Compensation of Directors

    | Form of Compensation | | | Retainer | $140,000 | | Equity Award | $180,000 | | Lead Director Fee | $40,000 | | Audit Review Committee Chair Fee | $25,000 | | Compensation Committee Chair Fee | $25,000 | | Corporate Governance Committee Chair Fee | $20,000 | | Finance Committee Chair Fee | $15,000 |

  41. Compensation of Directors

    Under our Nonemployee Director Deferred Compensation Plan, directors may choose to defer some or all of their annual retainers until they retire from the Board. For deferrals through December 2016, a director could elect to have these deferrals invested in either an interest-bearing account or an account with a return equivalent to an investment in Deere common stock. For deferrals effective in January 2017 and later, directors may choose from a list of investment options, none of which yields an above-market earnings rate.

  42. Compensation of Directors

    | 18 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  43. Compensation of Directors

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  44. Compensation of Directors

    | CASH RETAINER | | STOCK OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT 5X DIRECTOR’S ANNUAL CASH RETAINER |

  45. Compensation of Directors

    Our stock ownership guidelines require each nonemployee director to own Deere common stock equivalent in value to at least five times the director’s effective annual cash retainer. This ownership level must be achieved within five years of the date the director joins the Board. RSUs and any common stock held personally by the nonemployee director are included in determining whether the applicable ownership threshold has been reached. Each nonemployee director has achieved stockholdings in excess of the applicable multiple as of the date of this Proxy Statement or is within the five-year compliance period. We require nonemployee directors to hold all equity awards until the occurrence of one of the following triggering events: retirement from the Board, total and permanent disability, death, or a change in control of Deere combined with a qualifying termination of the director’s service with the Company. Directors may not sell, gift, or otherwise dispose of their equity awards before the occurrence of a triggering event. While the restrictions are in effect, nonemployee directors receive dividend equivalents on the RSUs.

  46. fiscal 2025 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

    fiscal 2025 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION In fiscal 2025, we provided the following compensation to our nonemployee directors. The compensation of John C. May, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President, is shown in the Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table.

  47. fiscal 2025 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

    | | Fees Earned | | | | Name | or Paid in Cash(1) | Stock Awards(2) | Total | | Leanne G. Caret | $165,000 | $179,988 | $344,988 | | Tamra A. Erwin | $160,000 | $179,988 | $339,988 | | R. Preston Feight | $152,564 | $179,988 | $332,552 | | Alan C. Heuberger | $147,500 | $179,988 | $327,488 | | L. Neil Hunn | $152,500 | $179,988 | $332,488 | | Michael O. Johanns | $140,000 | $179,988 | $319,988 | | Clayton M. Jones | $46,667 | $— | $46,667 | | Gregory R. Page | $147,500 | $179,988 | $327,488 | | Sherry M. Smith | $123,281 | $179,988 | $303,269 | | Dmitri L. Stockton | $152,500 | $179,988 | $332,488 | | Sheila G. Talton | $140,000 | $179,988 | $319,988 |

  48. fiscal 2025 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

    (1)All fees earned in fiscal 2025 for services as a director, including committee chair and Lead Director fees, whether paid in cash or deferred under the Nonemployee Director Deferred Compensation Plan, are included in this column. (2)Represents the aggregate grant date fair value of RSUs computed in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation and does not correspond to the actual value that will be realized by the nonemployee directors. The values in this column exclude the effect of estimated forfeitures. All grants are fully expensed in the fiscal year granted based on the grant price. For fiscal 2025, the grant date was March 5, 2025, and the grant price was $467.50 per RSU. The nonemployee director grant date is seven calendar days after the Annual Meeting. These awards vest one year after grant date but are required to be held until retirement or certain other events. The assumptions made in valuing the RSUs reported in this column are discussed in Note 22, “Share-Based Compensation,” of our consolidated financial statements filed with the SEC as part of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 2, 2025 (“2025 Form 10-K”). The following table lists the cumulative RSUs held by the nonemployee directors as of November 2, 2025:

  49. fiscal 2025 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

    | Name | RSUs | Name | RSUs | | Leanne G. Caret | 1,797 | Michael O. Johanns | 9,316 | | Tamra A. Erwin | 2,924 | Gregory R. Page | 11,506 | | R. Preston Feight | 530 | Dmitri L. Stockton | 8,800 | | Alan C. Heuberger | 6,589 | Sheila G. Talton | 8,800 | | L. Neil Hunn | 1,063 | | |

  50. fiscal 2025 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 19 |

  51. fiscal 2025 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  52. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

    | (6) See the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2025 Year-End table for additional information regarding equity ownership for NEOs. |

  53. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION Table of contents

    | executive compensation tables and other information | | | | | Executive Compensation Tables | 64 | Option Award Disclosure | 79 | | Pay Ratio Disclosure | 75 | Equity Compensation Plan Information | 80 | | Pay Versus Performance Disclosure | 76 | Appendix B–Methodology for Short-Term Incentive Goal Setting | 102 |

  54. OUR EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY: PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

    | | Type of Compensation | Metric | | Alignment with Business Strategy | | Short-Term | short-term incentive (known within Deere as STI) | Operating Return on Operating Assets (OROA)(1) | | Return on capital and assets through disciplined asset management and capital allocation | | | | Operating Return on Sales (OROS)(1) | | Profitability through operating margin focus | | | | Return on Equity (ROE)(1) | | Return on equity through efficient use of equity | | Long-Term | long-term Incentive (known within Deere as LTI) | Relative Revenue Growth(2) | | Sustained growth outperformance | | | | Relative Total Shareholder Return (rTSR)(3) | | Comparative TSR outperformance |

  55. OUR EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY: PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

    | (2) Based on Deere’s annualized revenue growth rate as compared to the performance peer group, as described in further detail below. |

  56. OUR EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY: PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

    | (3) Based on Deere’s three-year total shareholder return as compared to the performance peer group, as described in further detail below. |

  57. COMPENSATION METRICS SUMMARY FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDED 2025

    COMPENSATION METRICS SUMMARY FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDED 2025 Deere’s incentive programs are designed to reinforce our pay-for-performance philosophy by focusing leaders on the operational and financial outcomes most critical to our strategy. Despite market headwinds, Deere delivered strong execution and demonstrated operational resilience in fiscal 2025. Structural improvements driven by our Smart Industrial Operating Model enhanced profitability and enabled continued investment in technology and connectivity solutions. Moreover, actions such as inventory reductions and disciplined production management position Deere to respond when demand rebounds and to continue delivering long-term value. Deere operates in a cyclical industry influenced by various factors such as commodity prices, acreage planted, crop yields, government policies, and uncertainty in macroeconomic trends. The years 2009 and 2016 marked prior points in the business cycle similar to 2025. In fiscal 2025, Deere’s performance on the compensation metrics that drive payouts under our short- and long-term incentive programs surpassed the results achieved in both 2009 and 2016. We believe that the structurally improved nature of our business contributed to above-target payout levels for OROA and OROS. Specifically, fiscal 2025 OROA performance exceeded 2009 and 2016 levels by more than 40%, while OROS outperformed those same periods by over 58%. Similarly, financial services delivered the attainment of maximum payout levels for ROE in 2025 with ROE exceeding 2009 and 2016 performance by over 20%. For fiscal 2025, the shareholder value added (SVA) metric also exceeded the performance in both 2009 and 2016 by more than 400%. However, for the final cycle of the Long-Term Incentive Cash (LTIC) plan, despite exceeding the maximum for the primary metric, three-year accumulated SVA, the below-threshold relative TSR resulted in a reduction of the LTIC payout, underscoring the alignment with shareholder experience and the alignment of pay and performance.

  58. Fiscal 2025 Short-Term Incentive Payouts

    Fiscal 2025 Short-Term Incentive Payouts Our short-term incentive (STI) program centers on OROA and OROS—metrics selected for their ability to drive disciplined asset management and margin performance. For fiscal 2025, we increased the performance required to achieve funding at any given point in the business cycle, demonstrating a commitment to rigorous performance standards. With continued challenges in market demand levels as noted above, fiscal 2025 represented a trough year, or below 80% of a mid-cycle, and performance against the corresponding goal ranges are noted in the table below. Based on the structurally improved nature of our business and the team’s outstanding focus and customer commitment, overall STI performance was 160.8% of target.

  59. Fiscal 2025 Short-Term Incentive Payouts

    | 2025 STI PAYOUT | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Performance Metric | | OROA | | OROS | | ROE | | | Performance Result | | 121.7% | | 200.0% | | 200.0% | | | | | | | | | | | | Weighting | | 50% | | 40% | | 10% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 60.8% | | 80.0% | | 20.0% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Overall Payout 160.8% of target | | | |

  60. Fiscal 2025 Short-Term Incentive Payouts

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 37 |

  61. Fiscal 2025 Short-Term Incentive Payouts

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  62. Fiscal 2025 Period-Ending Long-Term Incentive Payouts

    Fiscal 2025 Period-Ending Long-Term Incentive Payouts Deere continues to deliver strong TSR performance, outperforming the fiscal 2025 performance peer group’s median, which is a subset of the S&P 500 Industrials, in the five- and ten-year periods, and the S&P 500 in the ten-year period.

  63. Fiscal 2025 Period-Ending Long-Term Incentive Payouts

    | TOTAL SHAREHOLDER RETURN (TSR) | | |

  64. Fiscal 2025 Period-Ending Long-Term Incentive Payouts

    Performance results for Deere’s long-term incentive plans closing in fiscal 2025 reflect differentiated outcomes across plan components. The final performance period of the Long-Term Incentive Cash (LTIC) plan, while not part of the fiscal 2025 LTI awards, concluded at the end of the year. The LTIC plan was based on cumulative SVA, which measures the company’s ability to generate returns above its cost of capital. For the fiscal 2023 through fiscal 2025 performance period, SVA totaled $17.09 billion against a goal of $7.49 billion, supporting a maximum payout of 200%. However, the relative total shareholder return (rTSR) modifier—based on Deere’s percentile ranking versus its performance peer group (made up of a subset of the S&P 500 Industrials as described in the “Performance Peer Group” discussion in the Compensation Determination Methodology and Process section below) was at the 23rd percentile—which reduced the final payout by 25% to 150%, more closely aligning the result with shareholder experience. In contrast, the performance stock unit (PSU) component of Deere’s Long-Term Incentive (LTI) program, which measures relative revenue growth against the same performance peer group, did not meet the threshold for payout. Starting from fiscal 2022 revenue of $52.6 billion and ending fiscal 2025 revenue at a trough level in the cycle of $45.7 billion, Deere’s relative revenue growth fell below the 25th percentile of the performance peer group. As a result, there is no payout for the PSU award for the performance period ending in fiscal 2025, reinforcing the rigor of Deere’s performance standards and the alignment of compensation outcomes with strategic, business, and financial results.

  65. Fiscal 2025 Period-Ending Long-Term Incentive Payouts

    | 2023-2025 LTIC PAYOUT | 2023-2025 LTI PAYOUT | | | |

  66. Fiscal 2025 Period-Ending Long-Term Incentive Payouts

    | 38 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  67. Fiscal 2025 Period-Ending Long-Term Incentive Payouts

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  68. Majority of CEO and OTHER NEOs’ Total Compensation was Performance-BAsed

    Majority of CEO and OTHER NEOs’ Total Compensation was Performance-BAsed Approximately 92% of our CEO’s 2025 target total compensation was variable and at-risk, and 54% was performance-based compensation. Similarly, 83% of our other NEOs’ annual target total compensation was variable and at-risk and 50% was performance-based compensation. The performance-based portion is based on OROA, OROS, and ROE in the STI program, and three-year relative TSR (50%) and relative revenue growth (50%) in the PSUs, which represent 50% of the total LTI award. These proportions enhance the strong link between pay and performance for our CEO and other NEOs and the alignment of their interests with those of the Company and shareholders. The table below shows the CEO’s target total direct compensation for fiscal 2025, made up of base salary, STI, and base LTI in the form of PSUs, stock options, and restricted stock units (RSUs), illustrating the high proportion that is performance-based.

  69. Majority of CEO and OTHER NEOs’ Total Compensation was Performance-BAsed

    | | | Performance-Based | | | | | | 2025 CEO Target Total Direct Compensation | Salary | STI Target | LTI Target PSUs | LTI Target Stock Options | LTI Target RSUs | Total | | John C. May | $1,697,280 | $3,394,560 | $7,400,000 | $3,700,000 | $3,700,000 | $19,891,840 | | % of LTI | | | 50% | 25% | 25% | | | % of Overall Total | 8% | 17% | 37% | 19% | 19% | 100% |

  70. Rigorous Targets in long-term and short-term incentives

    Rigorous Targets in long-term and short-term incentives As discussed above, for the PSUs with a performance period ending in fiscal 2025, actual performance on annualized revenue growth relative to the performance peer group was below the threshold level, resulting in zero payout on the PSUs, clearly demonstrating the rigor of our targets and alignment between pay and performance. Due to the cyclicality of Deere’s business, the Committee approves goals for OROA and OROS based upon a range of potential conditions rather than a static forecast. This range takes into account the business cycle and other relevant opportunities and risks, and for fiscal 2025, the ranges for all points in the cycle were increased from their prior levels, as Deere strives to continuously raise the bar. There is no discretion in the determination of the goals associated with a specific volume level. Refer to Appendix B “Methodology for Short-Term Incentive Goal Setting” for background on the STI goal setting process and the “Short Term Incentive” section, below. At the beginning of fiscal 2025, the Committee established targets in the STI program for OROA, OROS, and ROE that were deemed rigorous, aggressive and challenging, attainable only with strong performance at any given position within the business cycle. Specifically, for fiscal 2025 and being at the trough position within the business cycle, the OROA target was set at 21.0%, the OROS target was set at 11.0%, and the ROE target was set at 11.1%. The Company’s overall STI performance in fiscal 2025 was reflective of a structurally improved business amidst the continuation of challenging market conditions. The OROA of 21.7% and OROS of 12.6% reflect strong performance despite below trough sales from our equipment operations. The payouts were lower than fiscal 2024 in absolute dollar terms. Finally, despite the Company exceeding the target for the primary metric, three-year SVA, of the LTIC program, the below-threshold relative TSR resulted in a reduction of the LTIC payout by 25%, underscoring alignment with shareholder experience and our pay for performance philosophy.

  71. Rigorous Targets in long-term and short-term incentives

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 39 |

  72. Rigorous Targets in long-term and short-term incentives

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  73. 50% of NEOs’ Equity was Performance-based

    50% of NEOs’ Equity was Performance-based In fiscal 2025, 50% of the LTI equity award for the NEOs was in the form of PSUs. The PSUs are tied to two equally weighted, three-year performance metrics of relative revenue growth and relative TSR as compared to the performance peer group. The Committee set the target at the 50th percentile for relative TSR performance and at the 50th percentile for relative revenue growth, which it considered to be rigorous and challenging. The remainder of the LTI equity award for the NEOs was made up of 25% stock options and 25% RSUs, both of which vest in approximately equal annual installments over three years. The stock options are designed to align executive compensation with shareholder interests and only deliver value if the Company’s stock price appreciates after the grant date, thereby directly linking to market performance. The proportion of total compensation that was performance-based further enhances the link between pay and performance for the NEOs and strengthens the alignment of the interests of the executives with shareholders.

  74. PEER GROUP ASSESSED AND REVIEWED ANNUALLY

    PEER GROUP ASSESSED AND REVIEWED ANNUALLY Each year, the Committee, with the assistance of the compensation consultant, completes a rigorous review of the compensation peer group of comparable companies that is used as a reference point in connection with executive compensation decisions. In this assessment, the Committee evaluates U.S.-based companies with an emphasis on diversified, global, industrial manufacturing companies with comparable sales and market capitalization to those of Deere. The Committee carefully considers the selection criteria, the range of values on such criteria, and the companies included. For fiscal 2025, the Committee determined the appropriate market reference for the NEOs’ target total direct compensation was the median (50th percentile) of the compensation peer group, with consideration for each NEO’s individual experience and performance as appropriate. Consistent with best practices for corporate governance, the Committee has committed to review the compensation peer group annually. Refer to the “Compensation Peer Group” and “Performance Peer Group” discussions in the Compensation Determination Methodology and Process section for additional detail.

  75. PEER GROUP ASSESSED AND REVIEWED ANNUALLY

    | 40 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  76. PEER GROUP ASSESSED AND REVIEWED ANNUALLY

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  77. Shareholders and the Executive Compensation Program

    | how we responded to what we heard | | In response to the feedback received from shareholders, we have taken the following actions in 2025 and recent years: ◾ Implemented increased STI performance targets for OROA and OROS for fiscal 2025 to further align with Deere’s OROA and OROS aspirations in the Leap Ambitions ◾ Implemented changes to our variable pay plans to ensure alignment of pay and performance by: (1) increasing the proportion of performance-based PSUs in our LTI plan to 50%; and (2) adjusting the metric weightings for STI ◾ Shifted all long-term incentives to be in the form of equity, eliminating the long-term cash component from previous years, to more closely align the interests of our NEOs with those of our shareholders ◾ Supported shareholders’ interest in efficient return on assets by retaining OROA as the metric with the greatest weighting in the STI calculation in fiscal 2025 ◾ Enhanced integration with the Leap Ambitions through emphasis on OROS in the STI calculation ◾ Continued alignment with the interest of our shareholders by using relative TSR and relative revenue growth in our long-term incentives |

  78. Target compensation Reported VS. REALIZABLE VALUE

    Target compensation Reported VS. REALIZABLE VALUE (Millions) The reported compensation is generally as shown in the Summary Compensation Table or other table and is comprised of (1) the target value for the STI, (2) for fiscal 2023, the target value for the LTIC opportunity granted (the LTIC was discontinued after fiscal 2023, so there are no target or realizable values for the LTIC for fiscal 2024 or fiscal 2025), and (3) the reported value for each component of the LTI granted in the specified year (PSUs, RSUs, and stock options). The realizable compensation is comprised of (1) STI earned during the specified year reflecting the overall performance of the STI metrics (OROA, OROS, and ROE), (2) the actual value earned from LTIC granted in fiscal 2023 with a performance period ending in fiscal 2025 reflecting the performance of the SVA metric and the rTSR modifier, and (3) equity grants valued using the closing stock price of $461.63 on November 2, 2025 as further detailed below:

  79. Target compensation Reported VS. REALIZABLE VALUE

    | ◾ | PSUs granted in the specified year reflect the actual payout for the 2023-2025 performance period based on relative revenue growth performance, and forecasted payouts for the in-process performance cycles of 2024-2026 and 2025-2027, which are based on the performance of the equally weighted metrics of relative revenue growth and rTSR performance; |

  80. Target compensation Reported VS. REALIZABLE VALUE

    | ◾ | RSUs based on the quantity granted during the specified year; and |

  81. Target compensation Reported VS. REALIZABLE VALUE

    | ◾ | Stock options based on the intrinsic (in the money) value of options granted in the specified year. |

  82. Snapshot of Compensation Governance

    | | What wE DO: | | What wE DO not do: | | ◾ Use a combination of short-term and long-term incentives to ensure a strong connection between Deere’s operating performance and actual compensation delivered ◾ Annually evaluate our compensation and performance peer groups and pay positioning under a range of performance scenarios ◾ Annually review all of our compensation plans, policies, and significant practices ◾ Annually review risks associated with compensation ◾ Include a “double-trigger” change in control provision in our executive Change in Control Severance Program and our current equity plan ◾ Annually review and limit executive perquisites ◾ Retain an independent compensation consultant who does not perform other significant services for Deere ◾ Maintain a recoupment policy compliant with SEC and NYSE rules to ensure accountability in the presentation of our financial statements ◾ Enforce stock ownership requirements to ensure that directors and executives have interests aligned with our shareholders ◾ Provide executive officers with benefits such as health-care insurance, life insurance, disability, and retirement plans generally on the same basis as other full-time Deere employees | | ◾ Offer employment agreements to our U.S.-based executives ◾ Provide above-market perquisites ◾ Provide tax gross-ups for executives, except for those available to all employees generally ◾ Provide excise tax gross-ups upon a change in control to any employees ◾ Offer above-market earnings on contributions to deferred compensation accounts ◾ Grant stock options with an exercise price less than the fair market value of Deere’s common stock on the date of grant ◾ Re-price stock options without the prior approval of our shareholders ◾ Cash out underwater stock options ◾ Include reload provisions in any stock option grant ◾ Permit directors or employees (including officers), or their respective related persons, to engage in short sales of Deere’s stock or to trade in instruments designed to hedge against declines in Deere’s stock price ◾ Permit directors or officers to hold Deere securities in margin accounts or to pledge Deere securities as collateral for loans or other obligations | |

  83. Direct Compensation Elements

    Direct Compensation Elements As shown in the 2025 Target Direct Compensation Mix charts, the majority of direct compensation for the NEOs is based on “at-risk” variable pay, with a majority of NEOs’ pay being performance-based. Our performance-based compensation programs fall into two categories: short-term incentives paid in cash based on annual metrics and long-term incentives based on a three-year performance period. Long-term incentives are awarded in the form of equity, with 50% being in the form of PSUs that are performance-based with the remainder being in the form of RSUs and stock options. The components of our 2025 compensation program are:

  84. RECENT executive compensation changes

    | ◾ | In fiscal 2025, the OROA threshold for payout at trough (18%) was 1.5 times higher than the level needed for a maximum payout in fiscal 2015 at trough (12%). This highlights the significant increase in performance expectations. |

  85. RECENT executive compensation changes

    | ◾ | Adding OROS as an STI performance metric in fiscal 2022 reinforced the Company’s commitment to its Smart Industrial Operating Model by incorporating a profitability metric as an adjunct to a return metric. |

  86. Short-Term Incentive (STI)

    Short-Term Incentive (STI) Awards under the John Deere Short-Term Incentive Bonus Plan are paid in cash based on annual performance metrics.

  87. PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR STI

    PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR STI The Company’s STI program uses metrics for return on assets, profitability, and return on equity. The Committee believes operating margins and the allocation of capital for research and development as well as other investment in a disciplined approach are key drivers to creating long-term shareholder value. For this reason, the Committee has designed the STI program to support our Smart Industrial Operating Model and to motivate our executives and most other salaried employees to focus on profitability, asset optimization, and capital efficiency. To underscore this focus, the performance metrics include operating return on operating assets (OROA) and operating return on sales (OROS) from the equipment operations, and return on equity (ROE) from financial services.

  88. PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR STI

    | OROA, essentially a measure of return on assets, supports our strategic approach to sound investment of capital and asset utilization and our Leap Ambitions. | OROS, essentially a measure of profitability, demonstrates the commitment to deliver operating margins and supports our Leap Ambitions. | ROE effectively measures the efficient use of equity. |

  89. weightings of PERFORMANCE METRICS

    weightings of PERFORMANCE METRICS

  90. weightings of PERFORMANCE METRICS

    | | OROA is the most heavily weighted STI performance metric at 50%, OROS is the second most heavily weighted metric at 40%, and ROE contributes the remaining 10%. OROA and OROS are based upon the performance of the equipment operations, which reflects the consolidated results of Production and Precision Agriculture, Small Agriculture and Turf, and Construction and Forestry operations. The emphasis on the OROA and OROS performance of the equipment operations in calculating STI reflects the critical position these operations have as drivers of our business. Equipment operations’ net sales accounted for 85% of our net sales and revenues in fiscal 2025. |

  91. ROE – Financial Services Metric and goals

    ROE – Financial Services Metric and goals The STI performance metric for the financial services business is ROE, a key differentiator for how we deliver value to our dealers and customers. ROE was selected because it effectively measures the efficient use of the segment’s equity. Our financial services division is made up of two distinct business models, subsidized and non-subsidized business, where we have different ROE goals and the overall financial services goal represents a weighted average of each. The subsidized business represents approximately 70% of financial services’ business, and the ROE goals for this portion are 10% at threshold, target, and maximum as maximizing profitability is not the purpose of this segment. The non-subsidized portion of the business does intend to utilize equity to earn a profitable return. Consequently, this business has more traditional and progressively more challenging goals. The threshold goal equals the implied after-tax cost of equity for financial services.

  92. APPROVAL OF STI AWARD RATES

    APPROVAL OF STI AWARD RATES At the beginning of the fiscal year, after review and consideration of Deere’s compensation peer group data for target cash bonuses, the Committee approves target STI rates as a percentage of the NEO’s base salary. Regardless of the award amount reached by applying these payout rates, no individual award under the STI plan may exceed $10 million or 200% of target. No changes were made to the target rates for fiscal 2025.

  93. APPROVAL OF STI AWARD RATES

    | | 2024 Target Rate | 2025 Target Rate | | CEO | 200% | 200% | | Other NEOs | 100% | 100% |

  94. FISCAL 2025 PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND PAYOUT AMOUNTS

    FISCAL 2025 PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND PAYOUT AMOUNTS The chart below shows the STI performance targets and actual results for fiscal 2025. With mid-cycle sales at 76%, OROA and OROS were calibrated to the 80% level since there is no further interpolation below the 80% level, reflecting Deere’s position in the current business environment. Despite ongoing market headwinds, Deere management’s disciplined asset management and focused margin execution contributed to strong results. OROA reached 21.7% against a target of 21.0%, resulting in a payout of 121.7%. OROS exceeded expectations, achieving 12.6% versus a target of 11.0%, leading to a maximum payout of 200.0%. These results demonstrate Deere’s ability to maintain profitability and operational efficiency throughout the cycle. For ROE, due to higher financial services net income, Deere exceeded the maximum performance goal. ROE performance landed at 12.5% compared to a target of 11.1%, resulting in a payout of 200.0%. The overall weighted STI payout for fiscal 2025 was 160.8%, reflecting strong execution across the enterprise and alignment with Deere’s performance-based compensation philosophy.

  95. FISCAL 2025 PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND PAYOUT AMOUNTS

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 49 |

  96. FISCAL 2025 PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND PAYOUT AMOUNTS

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  97. STI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    STI AWARD CALCULATIONS The amount of the STI award paid to the NEOs is calculated as follows:

  98. STI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    | eligible earnings for the fiscal year | | Target STI rate | | Actual performance as a percentage of target | | STI award amount |

  99. STI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    Based on the 160.8% STI payout, actual STI awards paid to the NEOs are shown in the table below.

  100. STI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    | | Fiscal 2025 | Target Award as a | | | Actual Performance as a | | Fiscal 2025 | | Name | Eligible Earnings | Percentage of Salary | | Target Award | Percentage of Target(1) | | STI Award Payout | | John C. May | $1,694,507x | 200% | = | $3,389,014x | 160.8% | = | $5,450,551 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | $940,724x | 100% | = | $940,724x | 160.8% | = | $1,512,966 | | Ryan D. Campbell | $989,700x | 100% | = | $989,700x | 160.8% | = | $1,591,735 | | Rajesh Kalathur | $982,523x | 100% | = | $982,523x | 160.8% | = | $1,580,192 | | Deanna M. Kovar | $932,635x | 100% | = | $932,635x | 160.8% | = | $1,499,957 |

  101. STI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    | (1) Actual performance as a percentage of target is rounded. |

  102. Long-Term Incentive (LTI) Awards

    Long-Term Incentive (LTI) Awards LTI is designed to reward the NEOs for creating sustained shareholder value, encourage the ownership of Deere stock, foster teamwork, and retain and motivate high-caliber executives while aligning their interests with those of our shareholders. LTI awards are made under the John Deere 2020 Equity and Incentive Plan, which was approved by our shareholders at the Annual Meeting in February 2020. LTI awards tie a significant portion of NEO compensation to the Company’s performance over time and include 50% performance-based awards. LTI awards consist of the following three equity components awarded annually:

  103. Long-Term Incentive (LTI) Awards

    | Performance Stock Units (PSUs) | Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) | Market-priced stock options |

  104. FISCAL 2025 LTI AWARD OVERVIEW FOR The NEOs

    FISCAL 2025 LTI AWARD OVERVIEW FOR The NEOs All of the long-term incentive compensation for our executive officers in fiscal 2025 was awarded in the form of equity. The mix of equity awards for our executive officers is shown in the following chart.

  105. FISCAL 2025 LTI AWARD OVERVIEW FOR The NEOs

    | | Weighting | Performance measurements | Vesting period | Objective | | PSUs | | Relative revenue growth(1) and relative TSR(2), in equal proportions | Cliff vest on the third anniversary of the grant date | Motivate and reward relative outperformance, demonstrate management contribution in excess of market performance | | RSUs | | Stock price appreciation | Vest in approximately equal annual installments over three years | Encourage ownership and retention while providing immediate alignment with the interest of shareholders; have upside potential but deliver some value even during periods of market or stock price underperformance | | Stock Options | | Stock price appreciation | Vest in approximately equal annual installments over three years; expire ten years from the grant date | Aligns management’s interest with shareholders, rewarding for stock price appreciation |

  106. FISCAL 2025 LTI AWARD OVERVIEW FOR The NEOs

    | (1) Based on Deere’s annualized revenue growth rate as compared to the performance peer group. |

  107. FISCAL 2025 LTI AWARD OVERVIEW FOR The NEOs

    | (2) Based on Deere’s three-year total shareholder return as compared to the performance peer group. |

  108. FISCAL 2025 LTI AWARD OVERVIEW FOR The NEOs

    | 50 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  109. FISCAL 2025 LTI AWARD OVERVIEW FOR The NEOs

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  110. APPROVAL OF LTI EQUITY AWARD VALUES

    APPROVAL OF LTI EQUITY AWARD VALUES The Committee established award values of LTI grants for the NEOs based on the following criteria:

  111. APPROVAL OF LTI EQUITY AWARD VALUES

    | Level of responsibility | Individual performance | Current market practice | Peer group data | Consideration of the dilution to shareholders |

  112. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS Near the beginning of each fiscal year, the Committee reviews compensation peer group data, focusing on median long-term incentive (LTI) award opportunities. Based on this review, the Committee establishes an initial base LTI value and approves both the grant mix and the dollar value for a base-level equity award. The amount of the LTI award granted to the NEOs is calculated as follows:

  113. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    | Base Award Value | | PERFORMANCE ADJUSTMENT FACTOR | | ADJUSTED AWARD VALUE |

  114. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    LTI base level equity awards may be adjusted by a performance adjustment factor to distinguish an NEO’s performance, deliver a particular LTI equity value, or reflect other adjustments as the Committee deems appropriate. For fiscal 2025 LTI base level equity awards, the Committee approved a performance adjustment factor range of an increase or decrease of up to +/-20%. The CEO recommends the adjustment for each senior officer, including the NEOs other than himself, to the Committee for its review. The recommendations are based upon execution and progress on pre-established objectives that may include quantitative and qualitative targets categorized in the areas of:

  115. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    | ◾ | Business Execution‒Deliver financial and operating results |

  116. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    | ◾ | Innovation for Sustainability‒Develop next-generation customer solutions through our innovations and investments in digital, automation, autonomy, and electrification |

  117. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    | ◾ | Leadership and Human Capital‒Demonstrate leadership skills and champion Deere’s higher purpose principles, drive the company culture and engagement, and attract, develop, and retain our workforce |

  118. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    The Committee evaluates the CEO’s performance and recommends the adjustment for the CEO’s base-level equity award. This recommendation is based upon the same categories applied to the other senior officers and is reviewed with, and approved by, the other independent directors of the Board. For fiscal 2025, the adjustments to base-level equity awards recognize the senior officers’ individual performance and execution in the categories set forth above. The Committee approved adjustments to base-level award values ranging up to 20% to recognize the accomplishments of the CEO and individual NEOs. LTI equity awards were approved for the NEOs as follows:

  119. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    | | Base Award | Performance | | Adjusted | | Name | Values | Adjustment | | Award Values(1) | | John C. May | $14,800,000x | 115% | = | $17,020,000 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | $3,600,000x | 115% | = | $4,140,000 | | Ryan D. Campbell | $3,600,000x | 115% | = | $4,140,000 | | Rajesh Kalathur | $3,600,000x | 110% | = | $3,960,000 | | Deanna M. Kovar | $3,600,000x | 110% | = | $3,960,000 |

  120. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    | (1) The amounts shown include PSUs valued at the stock price on the date of grant assuming a target payout. |

  121. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    See the Fiscal 2025 Grants of Plan-Based Awards table and footnotes for more information on LTI equity awards delivered, and how they were valued for purposes of the tables as well as the terms of the awards. The grant price is the closing price of Deere common stock on the NYSE on the grant date and is used to determine the number of PSUs, RSUs, and stock options to be awarded. Awards granted in previous years are not a factor in determining the current year’s LTI award, nor is potential accumulated wealth.

  122. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 51 |

  123. LTI AWARD CALCULATIONS

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  124. PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PSUs granted in 2025

    PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PSUs granted in 2025 For PSUs granted in fiscal 2025 (December 2024), the actual number of shares to be issued upon vesting will be based on Deere’s revenue growth and total shareholder return relative to the performance peer group with equal weighting for the three-year performance period ending in 2027 and measured as of the end of the performance period. The performance peer group is approved by the Committee at the start of the performance period. The calculations for the payout of the fiscal 2025 PSU award will be as follows:

  125. PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PSUs granted in 2025

    | 50% of PSUs Awarded | | relative Revenue Growth Payout % | | PSU PAYOUT BASED ON REVENUE GROWTH METRIC |

  126. PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PSUs granted in 2025

    | 50% of PSUs Awarded | | relative TSR Payout % | | PSU PAYOUT BASED ON TSR METRIC |

  127. PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PSUs granted in 2025

    The PSU payout based on the relative revenue growth metric, together with the PSU payout based on the relative TSR metric, will make up the PSU award for the performance period ending in 2027. The number of PSUs that vest and convert to shares from the PSU award for the performance period ending in 2027 can range from 0% to 200% of the number of PSUs awarded, depending on Deere’s relative performance during the performance period, as illustrated in the following table. These performance targets reflect the Committee’s belief that median levels of relative performance should generally lead to median levels of compensation. Additionally, setting the target at the 50th percentile is also substantially aligned with the competitive market, with the majority of peer companies setting the target at the median.

  128. PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PSUs granted in 2025

    | Deere’s Revenue Growth or TSR Performance Relative to | % of Target Shares | | the Performance Peer Group | Earned (Payout %)(1) | | At or above 75th percentile | 200% | | At 50th percentile | 100% | | At 25th percentile | 25% | | Below 25th percentile | 0% |

  129. PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PSUs granted in 2025

    | (1) Interim points are interpolated. |

  130. summary of PSU awards

    summary of PSU awards Each PSU award is based on a performance period of three fiscal years resulting in overlapping periods. The potential payout for each PSU award ranges from 0 to 200 percent. For the three outstanding PSU awards as of 2025 fiscal year end, the table below illustrates each performance period and the corresponding performance measures and weights.

  131. summary of PSU awards

    | Fiscal Year Award | 3-Year Performance Period(1) | Performance Measures and Weights | Potential Payouts | PSU Payout Date | | | | | | | | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | | 2023-2025 PSUs | 10/31/2022 to 11/02/2025 | 100% Relative Revenue Growth | 0 - 200% | 12/14/2025 | | | | 2024-2026 PSUs | 10/30/2023 to 11/01/2026 | 50% Relative Revenue Growth 50% Relative TSR | 0 - 200% | | 12/13/2026 | | | 2025-2027 PSUs | 10/28/2024 to 10/31/2027 | 50% Relative Revenue Growth 50% Relative TSR | 0 - 200% | | | 12/11/2027 |

  132. summary of PSU awards

    | (1) The performance periods reflect the full fiscal years covered by each PSU award. Relative revenue growth is calculated for those periods as of a date specified in the terms of the PSU awards. This date is November 15 for the 2023-2025 PSUs and 2024-2026 PSUs and is November 1 for the 2025-2027 PSUs. |

  133. summary of PSU awards

    | 52 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  134. summary of PSU awards

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  135. Long-term incentive PSU payout FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDED FISCAL 2025

    Long-term incentive PSU payout FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDED FISCAL 2025 The performance period for PSUs granted in fiscal 2023 (December 2022) ended on November 2, 2025. The performance peer group for this period was approved by the Committee at the start of the performance period.

  136. psu PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDed fiscal 2025

    psu PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDed fiscal 2025 The calculation for the payout of the fiscal 2023 PSU award was as follows:

  137. psu PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDed fiscal 2025

    | 100% of PSUs Awarded | | RELATIVE Revenue Growth Payout % | | PSU PAYOUT |

  138. psu PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDed fiscal 2025

    The number of PSUs that vest and convert to shares from the PSU award for the performance period ended on November 2, 2025 could range from 0% to 200% of the number of PSUs awarded, depending on Deere’s relative revenue growth performance during the performance period, as illustrated in the following table:

  139. psu PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDed fiscal 2025

    | Deere’s Revenue Growth Relative to | % of Target Shares | | the Performance Peer Group | Earned (Payout %)(1) | | At or above 75th percentile | 200% | | At 50th percentile | 100% | | At 25th percentile | 25% | | Below 25th percentile | 0% |

  140. psu PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDed fiscal 2025

    | (1) Interim points are interpolated. |

  141. psu PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDed fiscal 2025

    These performance targets reflect the Committee’s belief that median levels of relative performance should generally lead to median levels of compensation. Setting the target at the 50th percentile is also substantially aligned with the competitive market, with the majority of peer companies setting the target at the median.

  142. PSU payout FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDED FISCAL 2025

    PSU payout FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDED FISCAL 2025 The final number of shares earned was based on Deere’s annualized revenue growth relative to the performance peer group over the three-year performance period. The Committee made its final payout determination following a review of the relative revenue growth performance of Deere versus the performance peer group companies. Starting from fiscal 2022 revenue of $52.6 billion and ending fiscal 2025 revenue at $45.7 billion, Deere’s revenue growth reflects the impact of the trough cycle, resulting in performance at the 11th percentile. Because performance was below the 25th percentile, the PSU awards concluding in fiscal 2025 resulted in no payout.

  143. PSU payout FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDED FISCAL 2025

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 53 |

  144. PSU payout FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDED FISCAL 2025

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  145. Long-term incentive cash (LTIC) payout FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDED FISCAL 2025

    Long-term incentive cash (LTIC) payout FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDED FISCAL 2025 To further emphasize LTI equity and simplify our compensation program, the Committee discontinued the use of the LTIC plan for performance periods that would have begun in fiscal 2024 and thereafter, and allowed the LTIC in-process performance periods to continue. The performance period ending in fiscal 2025 represents the final three-year performance period under the LTIC program. The payout for the performance period ended fiscal 2025 used a three-year SVA metric with a modifier based on three-year relative TSR performance. The following chart details the threshold, target, and maximum accumulated SVA goals for the remaining performance period that included fiscal 2025. The target and maximum goals for the performance period ending in 2025 represented a 30% increase from the performance period that ended in fiscal 2024. Payout percentages are linearly interpolated for SVA performance between the points.

  146. Long-term incentive cash (LTIC) payout FOR PERFORMANCE PERIOD ENDED FISCAL 2025

    | | Fiscal 2023 | | SVA Goals for LTIC | through Fiscal 2025 | | SVA Goal for Maximum Payout | $14,980 million | | SVA Goal for Target Payout | $7,490 million | | Threshold SVA Required for Payout | $5 million |

  147. MODIFICATION OF AWARDS BASED ON RELATIVE TSR (rTSR)

    MODIFICATION OF AWARDS BASED ON RELATIVE TSR (rTSR) LTIC payouts may be modified based on rTSR performance as compared to the performance peer group. The comparator peer group utilized for the PSU metrics is also used for the rTSR comparator group. Performance at the 50th percentile will have no adjustment to the payout as the modifier will be 100%. Payout percentages are linearly interpolated for rTSR performance between the points as illustrated below.

  148. MODIFICATION OF AWARDS BASED ON RELATIVE TSR (rTSR)

    | Performance Bend Points | Percent of Award Earned | | At or above 75th percentile | 125% | | 50th percentile | 100% | | At or below 25th percentile | 75% |

  149. MODIFICATION OF AWARDS BASED ON RELATIVE TSR (rTSR)

    The LTIC award opportunity was capped and could not exceed 200% of target. For example, if SVA performance was at maximum, the LTIC payout could not exceed 200% of target even if rTSR performance was above 50th percentile.

  150. LTIC AWARD CALCULATIONs

    | | Fiscal 2025 | | | | SVA Performance Payout | | | Fiscal 2025 | | Name | Eligible Earnings | Target LTIC Rate | | Target Award | Before Modifier | rTSR Modifier | | LTIC Award Payout | | John C. May | $1,694,507x | 135% | = | $2,287,584x | 200.0%x | 75.0% | = | $3,431,377 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | $940,724x | 105% | = | $987,760x | 200.0%x | 75.0% | = | $1,481,640 | | Ryan D. Campbell | $989,700x | 105% | = | $1,039,185x | 200.0%x | 75.0% | = | $1,558,778 | | Rajesh Kalathur | $982,523x | 105% | = | $1,031,649x | 200.0%x | 75.0% | = | $1,547,474 | | Deanna M. Kovar | $932,635x | 105% | = | $979,267x | 200.0%x | 75.0% | = | $1,468,900 |

  151. The Role of the Compensation Consultant

    The Role of the Compensation Consultant The Committee may, in its sole discretion, engage the services of independent advisers such as a compensation consultant or legal counsel to assist in the performance of its duties. The Committee retained Semler Brossy Consulting Group, LLC (Semler Brossy) as its compensation consultant in May 2025, prior to which Pearl Meyer & Partners, LLC (Pearl Meyer) served as the Committee’s compensation consultant. Pearl Meyer reviewed and assessed, and Semler Brossy reviews and assesses, our executive compensation program design and our compensation approach relative to our performance and the market. The Committee has sole responsibility for setting and modifying the fees paid to the consultant, determining the nature and scope of its services, and evaluating its performance. The Committee may terminate the engagement of the consultant or hire another compensation consultant at any time. Semler Brossy regularly meets independently with the Chair of the Committee and regularly participates in Committee meetings, including executive sessions with the Committee (without any executives or other Deere personnel present), to review executive compensation data and discuss executive compensation matters, as Pearl Meyer did earlier in the year. While the Committee values this expert advice, ultimately the Committee’s decisions reflect many factors and considerations. Management works with the consultant at the Committee’s direction to develop materials and analyses, such as competitive market assessments and summaries of current legal and regulatory developments, which are essential to the Committee’s compensation determinations. The Committee reviewed the qualifications, independence and any potential conflicts of interests of Pearl Meyer annually and of Semler Brossy prior to its engagement. Neither firm provided or provides, as applicable, other significant services to Deere nor has any other direct or indirect business relationship with Deere or any of its affiliates. Taking these and other factors into account, the Committee has determined that the work performed by Pearl Meyer did not raise any conflict of interest, and that the work performed by Semler Brossy does not raise any conflicts of interest. Additionally, based on its analysis of the factors derived from SEC and NYSE regulations and identified in the Committee’s charter as being relevant to compensation consultant independence, the Committee has concluded that Pearl Meyer was, and Semler Brossy is, independent of Deere’s management.

  152. The Role of the Compensation Consultant

    | 56 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  153. The Role of the Compensation Consultant

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  154. COMPENSATION PEER GROUP

    COMPENSATION PEER GROUP Executive compensation is evaluated against a peer group of leading U.S.-based companies (with an emphasis on industrial manufacturing companies) that are generally characterized by large global operations, a diversified business, and/or roughly comparable annual sales and market capitalizations to Deere. Compensation paid by our compensation peer group is representative of the compensation we believe is required to attract, retain, and motivate executive talent. On at least an annual basis, the Committee works with its independent consultant to review the composition of the peer group to determine whether any changes should be made and to confirm that it remains an appropriate point of reference for NEO compensation. For fiscal 2025, the compensation peer group continues to include 16 companies. Emerson Electric Co. was removed due to divestitures, which resulted in a revenue profile no longer aligned with Deere and the remaining peer companies. General Electric Company was added as it now meets the selection criteria described above. The table below outlines the companies included in the fiscal 2025 compensation peer group used for market analysis.

  155. COMPENSATION PEER GROUP

    | Company | Ticker | Revenue (M)(1) | Market Capitalization (M)(2) | Employees(1) | | 3M Company | MMM | $32,681 | $60,379 | 85,000 | | Archer-Daniels-Midland Company | ADM | $96,896 | $38,521 | 40,360 | | The Boeing Company | BA | $77,794 | $157,693 | 171,000 | | Carrier Global Corporation | CARR | $22,098 | $48,203 | 53,000 | | Caterpillar Inc. | CAT | $67,060 | $150,521 | 109,100 | | Cisco Systems, Inc. | CSCO | $58,034 | $205,287 | 84,900 | | Cummins Inc. | CMI | $34,065 | $33,958 | 73,600 | | Eaton Corp. plc | ETN | $23,196 | $96,159 | 92,000 | | General Electric Company | GE | $67,954 | $138,911 | 125,000 | | General Dynamics Corporation | GD | $42,272 | $70,736 | 111,600 | | Honeywell International Inc. | HON | $36,662 | $138,251 | 97,000 | | Intel Corporation | INTC | $54,228 | $211,854 | 124,800 | | Johnson Controls International plc | JCI | $26,819 | $39,234 | 100,000 | | Lockheed Martin Corporation | LMT | $67,571 | $112,448 | 122,000 | | PACCAR Inc | PCAR | $35,127 | $51,078 | 31,100 | | RTX Corporation | RTX | $68,920 | $120,714 | 185,000 | | 75th Percentile | | $67,667 | $141,813 | 122,700 | | Median | | $48,250 | $104,304 | 98,500 | | 25th Percentile | | $33,719 | $50,360 | 82,075 | | Deere & Company | DE | $61,222 | $112,066 | 83,000 | | Deere Percentile | | 62nd | 53rd | 26th |

  156. COMPENSATION PEER GROUP

    | (1) Reflects data based on the last twelve months of data as of April 9, 2024 for all peers but Intel and Archer-Daniels Midland Company which are as of October 31, 2023 per S&P Capital IQ. |

  157. COMPENSATION PEER GROUP

    | (2) Reflects data based on the last twelve months of data as of December 31, 2023 as reviewed by the Committee at the time of its approval of the peer group for fiscal 2025. |

  158. COMPENSATION PEER GROUP

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 57 |

  159. COMPENSATION PEER GROUP

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  160. PERFORMANCE PEER GROUP

    PERFORMANCE PEER GROUP

  161. PERFORMANCE PEER GROUP

    | The relative performance metrics of TSR and revenue are measured against a peer group comprised of a subset of the S&P 500 Industrials. The peer group is developed by starting with the S&P 500 Industrials and then removing companies that are not manufacturing and/or related to the agricultural or construction cycles. Industries removed include Air Freight & Logistics, Airlines, Commercial Services & Supplies, Professional Services, and Trading Companies & Distributors. Within the relevant industries, qualitative discretion was applied to determine suitability and maintain consistency. Companies with significant U.S. government revenue are excluded since stock price and revenue are significantly driven by government actions. The performance peer group for the performance period ending in fiscal 2025 included the 43 companies listed below. | |

  162. PERFORMANCE PEER GROUP

    | Machinery | DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIALS | Electrical & Automation | Aerospace & Defense | | ◾ Caterpillar Inc. ◾ Cummins Inc. ◾ Dover Corporation ◾ Flowserve Corporation ◾ Fortive Corporation ◾ IDEX Corporation ◾ Illinois Tool Works Inc. ◾ Ingersoll Rand Inc. ◾ Otis Worldwide Corporation ◾ PACCAR Inc ◾ Parker-Hannifin Corporation ◾ Pentair plc ◾ Snap-on Incorporated ◾ Xylem Inc. | ◾ 3M Company ◾ Honeywell International Inc. ◾ Roper Technologies Inc. | ◾ AMETEK, Inc. ◾ Eaton Corporation plc ◾ Emerson Electric Co. ◾ Rockwell Automation, Inc. | ◾ GE Aerospace ◾ Howmet Aerospace Inc. ◾ Textron Inc. ◾ The Boeing Company ◾ TransDigm Group Incorporated | | | TRUCKING & Rail | Construction & Engineering | Building products | | | ◾ CSX Corporation ◾ J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. ◾ Kansas City Southern ◾ Norfolk Southern Corporation ◾ Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. ◾ Union Pacific Corporation ◾ Wabtec Corporation | ◾ Jacobs Solutions Inc. ◾ Quanta Services, Inc. | ◾ A.O. Smith Corporation ◾ Allegion plc ◾ Carrier Global Corporation ◾ Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. ◾ Johnson Controls International plc ◾ Masco Corporation ◾ Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. ◾ Trane Technologies plc |

  163. PERFORMANCE PEER GROUP

    Annually, the Committee works with its independent consultant to review the composition of the performance peer group. The Committee approved the following changes to the performance peer group for the three year performance periods beginning in fiscal 2024 and fiscal 2025: (1) the addition of Generac Holdings Inc. and Nordson Corporation; and (2) the removal of Flowserve Corporation; Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc.; Jacobs Solutions Inc.; Kansas City Southern; Roper Technologies Inc.; and TransDigm Group Incorporated.

  164. PERFORMANCE PEER GROUP

    | 58 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  165. PERFORMANCE PEER GROUP

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  166. Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    Potential Payments upon Change in Control Deere’s Change in Control Severance Program (the “CIC Program”) covers certain executives, including each of the NEOs, and is intended to facilitate continuity of management in the event of a change in control. The Committee believes the CIC Program:

  167. Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | Encourages executives to act in the best interests of shareholders when evaluating transactions that, without a change in control arrangement, could be personally detrimental | Keeps executives focused on running the business in the face of real or rumored transactions | Protects Deere’s value by retaining key talent despite potential corporate changes | Protects Deere’s value after a change in control by including restrictive covenants (such as non-compete provisions) and a general release of claims in favor of Deere | Helps Deere attract and retain executives as a competitive practice |

  168. Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    For more information, refer to “Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control” and the related table.

  169. Other Potential Post-Employment Payments

    Other Potential Post-Employment Payments Deere’s various plans and policies provide payments to NEOs upon certain types of employment terminations that are not related to a change in control. These events and amounts are explained in the “Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Termination of Employment Other than Following a Change in Control” and the related table.

  170. Risk Assessment of Compensation Policies and Practices

    | Incentive programs evaluate a variety of performance metrics | The performance metrics for our STI and LTIC plans as well as the PSU awards under the LTI plan are based on defined metrics as disclosed in the CD&A and are subject to internal audit and outside consultant review | The metrics for our STI, LTIC, and LTI compensation and the related potential payouts are capped to reduce the risk that executives might be motivated to attain excessively high “stretch” goals to maximize payouts | Overall compensation structure and mix are generally aligned with market practices and place more emphasis on at-risk, long-term pay for senior leaders | There are several control and risk mitigation mechanisms in place, including ownership guidelines, anti-hedging and anti-pledging policies, and Recovery Policy, with rigorous management and Committee oversight processes |

  171. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

  172. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | | | | | | | | Change in | | | | | | | | | | | Pension | | | | | | | | | | | Value and | | | | | | | | | | | Nonqualified | | | | | | | | | | Non-Equity | Deferred | | | | | Fiscal | | | Stock | Option | Incentive Plan | Compensation | All Other | | | Name and Principal Position | Year | Salary(1) | Bonus | Awards(2) | Awards(3) | Compensation(4) | Earnings(5) | Compensation(6) | Total | | John C. May | 2025 | $1,694,507 | $— | $13,950,239 | $4,255,133 | $5,450,551 | $1,437,161 | $1,137,833 | $27,925,424 | | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, | 2024 | $1,658,671 | $— | $13,052,518 | $4,439,055 | $5,971,216 | $1,698,832 | $981,380 | $27,801,672 | | and President | 2023 | $1,591,674 | $— | $12,446,367 | $5,733,640 | $5,911,159 | $436,715 | $602,964 | $26,722,519 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | 2025 | $940,724 | $— | $3,393,182 | $1,035,036 | $1,512,966 | $235,840 | $275,890 | $7,393,638 | | Senior Vice President and | 2024 | $920,823 | $— | $3,042,558 | $1,034,714 | $1,657,481 | $301,644 | $270,480 | $7,227,700 | | Chief Financial Officer | 2023 | $885,063 | $— | $2,764,056 | $1,046,512 | $1,643,473 | $39,772 | $116,320 | $6,495,196 | | Ryan D. Campbell | 2025 | $989,700 | $— | $3,393,182 | $1,035,036 | $1,591,735 | $396,210 | $288,866 | $7,694,729 | | President, Worldwide Construction | 2024 | $968,764 | $— | $3,042,558 | $1,034,714 | $1,743,776 | $479,068 | $280,461 | $7,549,341 | | & Forestry and Power Systems | 2023 | $931,140 | $— | $2,892,182 | $1,092,089 | $1,729,033 | $150,259 | $190,867 | $6,985,570 | | Rajesh Kalathur | 2025 | $982,523 | $— | $3,244,822 | $990,039 | $1,580,192 | $572,433 | $285,315 | $7,655,324 | | President, John Deere Financial, | 2024 | $961,731 | $— | $3,042,558 | $1,034,714 | $1,731,116 | $786,092 | $288,269 | $7,844,480 | | and Chief Information Officer | 2023 | $924,379 | $— | $2,885,627 | $1,092,089 | $1,716,479 | $162,670 | $184,028 | $6,965,272 | | Deanna M. Kovar | 2025 | $932,635 | $— | $3,244,822 | $990,039 | $1,499,957 | $282,921 | $494,069 | $7,444,443 | | President, Worldwide Agriculture & Turf Division, | | | | | | | | | | | Production & Precision Ag, Sales and Marketing | | | | | | | | | | | Regions of the Americas and Australia | | | | | | | | | |

  173. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (1) Includes amounts deferred by the NEO under the John Deere Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan. Salary amounts deferred in fiscal 2025 are included in the first column of the Fiscal 2025 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table. |

  174. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (2) For fiscal 2025 and 2024, represents the aggregate grant date fair value of PSUs and RSUs computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. For fiscal 2023, represents the aggregate grant date fair value of PSUs, RSUs, and LTIC award computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The values in this column exclude the effect of estimated forfeitures of PSUs and RSUs. Assumptions made in the calculation of these amounts are included in Note 22, “Share-Based Compensation,” of our consolidated financial statements filed with the SEC on our 2025 Form 10-K. For PSUs, the value at the grant date is based upon a target payout of the performance metric over the three-year performance period. If the highest level of payout were achieved, the value of the PSU awards as of the grant date would be as follows: $19,390,595 (May); $4,716,466 (Jepsen); $4,716,466 (Campbell); $4,510,248 (Kalathur); and $4,510,248 (Kovar). For RSUs, the value at grant date is the market value of the RSUs using the closing price of a share of Deere common stock as reported on the NYSE on the grant date, multiplied by the number of shares underlying each award. RSUs vest over three years with 34% vesting on the first anniversary of the grant date, 33% vesting on the second anniversary of the grant date, and 33% vesting on the third anniversary of the grant date, at which time they may be settled in Deere common stock. |

  175. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (3) Represents the aggregate grant date fair value of stock options computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The values in this column exclude the effect of estimated forfeitures. The assumptions made in valuing option awards reported in this column and a more detailed discussion of the binomial lattice option pricing model appear in Note 22, “Share-Based Compensation,” of our consolidated financial statements filed with the SEC in the 2025 Form 10-K. Refer to the Fiscal 2025 Grants of Plan-Based Awards table and footnote (7) thereto for a detailed description of the grant date fair value of option awards. |

  176. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (4) Includes only cash awards under the STI plan. Cash awards earned under the STI plan for the performance period ended in fiscal 2025 were paid to the NEOs on December 15, 2025, unless deferred under the Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan. Deferred amounts are included in the first column of the Fiscal 2025 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table. Based on actual performance, as discussed in the CD&A under “Fiscal 2025 Performance Results and Payout Amounts” in the STI section, the NEOs earned an STI award equal to 160.8% of the target opportunity. For fiscal 2025, LTIC award amounts are not reflected as non-equity incentive plan compensation due to the change in accounting treatment of LTIC awards and the application of FASB ASC Topic 718 starting with fiscal 2023. Based on actual performance, as discussed in the CD&A under “Fiscal 2025 Performance Results for LTIC,” the NEOs earned an LTIC award for the 2023-2025 performance period equal to 150.0% of the target opportunity. The LTIC awards received during fiscal 2025 for the 2023-2025 performance period were $3,431,377 (May); $1,481,640 (Jepsen); $1,558,778 (Campbell); $1,547,474 (Kalathur); and $1,468,900 (Kovar). |

  177. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | 64 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  178. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  179. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (5) The total amount reported represents the change in the actuarial present value of each NEO’s accumulated benefit under all defined benefit plans year over year. The pension value calculations include the same assumptions as used in the pension plan valuations for financial reporting purposes. For more information on the assumptions, see footnote (4) to the Fiscal 2025 Pension Benefits Table. No NEO earned above market interest on deferred compensation during fiscal 2025. |

  180. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (6) The following table provides details about each component of the “All Other Compensation” column in the Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table: |

  181. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | | | | | Miscellaneous | Company Contributions to | | Total All Other | | Name | Corporate Aircraft(a) | Financial Planning(b) | Security Patrols(c) | Perquisites(d) | Defined Contribution Plans(e) | Expat Costs(f) | Compensation | | John C. May | $334,182 | $— | $24,962 | $12,117 | $766,572 | $— | $1,137,833 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | $— | $— | $9,538 | $6,531 | $259,821 | $— | $275,890 | | Ryan D. Campbell | $— | $— | $9,624 | $5,894 | $273,348 | $— | $288,866 | | Rajesh Kalathur | $— | $— | $8,369 | $5,582 | $271,364 | $— | $285,315 | | Deanna M. Kovar | $— | $— | $— | $3,870 | $251,874 | $238,325 | $494,069 |

  182. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (a) Per IRS regulations, the NEOs recognize imputed income on the personal use of Deere’s aircraft. For SEC disclosure purposes, the cost of personal use of Deere’s aircraft is calculated based on the incremental cost to Deere. To determine the incremental cost, we calculate the variable costs for fuel on a per-mile basis, plus any direct trip expenses such as on-board catering, landing/ramp fees, and crew expenses. Fixed costs that do not change based on usage, such as pilot salaries, depreciation of aircraft, and maintenance costs, are excluded. Mr. May’s personal usage of company aircraft in fiscal 2025 amounted to approximately 52 hours of travel. |

  183. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (b) This column contains amounts Deere paid for financial planning assistance to the NEOs. Each year, the CEO may receive up to $15,000 of assistance and the other NEOs may receive up to $10,000. |

  184. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (c) In accordance with the Company’s security program, amounts include incremental costs associated with security monitoring and patrols for the NEO’s personal residences. |

  185. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (d) Miscellaneous perquisites include spousal attendance at company events, excess liability premiums, company paid parking, and costs associated with annual physicals. |

  186. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (e) Deere makes contributions to the John Deere Savings and Investment Plan for all eligible employees. Deere also credits contributions to the John Deere Defined Contribution Restoration Plan for employees whose earnings exceed relevant IRS limits. |

  187. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | (f) Reflects costs associated with the NEO’s international assignment. These include expatriate-related expenses such as relocation assistance and tax equalization payments. Tax gross-ups are provided solely in connection with taxable relocation benefits and are not applied to other perquisites. |

  188. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    Refer to the CD&A under “Direct Compensation Elements,” as well as the footnotes to the Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table, for information about the compensation reflected therein.

  189. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 65 |

  190. Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  191. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS The following table provides additional information regarding fiscal 2025 grants of RSU, PSU, and stock option awards under the John Deere 2020 Equity and Incentive Plan and the potential range of awards that were approved in fiscal 2025 under the STI plan for payout in future years. These awards are further described in the CD&A under “Direct Compensation Elements.”

  192. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    | | Estimated Future Payouts Under | | | | Estimated Future Payouts Under | | | All Other | All Other | | | | | Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(2) | | | | Equity Incentive Plan Awards(3) | | | Stock | Option | Exercise | | | | | | | | | | | Awards: | Awards: | or Base | | | | | | | | | | | Number of | Number of | Price of | Grant Date Fair | | | | | | | | | | Shares of | Securities | Option | Value of Stock | | | | | | | | | | Stock or | Underlying | Awards | and Option | | Name | Grant Date(1) | Threshold | Target | Maximum | Threshold | Target | Maximum | Units(4) | Options(5) | ($/Sh)(6) | Awards(7) | | John C. May | 11/26/24-STI | $— | $3,389,014 | $6,778,028 | — | — | — | — | — | $— | $— | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | — | — | — | 9,497 | — | $— | $4,254,941 | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | 4,748 | 18,994 | 37,988 | — | — | $— | $9,695,298 | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | — | — | — | — | 36,597 | $448.03 | $4,255,133 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | 11/26/24-STI | $— | $940,724 | $1,881,448 | — | — | — | — | — | $— | $— | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | — | — | — | 2,310 | — | $— | $1,034,949 | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | 1,155 | 4,620 | 9,240 | — | — | $— | $2,358,233 | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | — | — | — | — | 8,902 | $448.03 | $1,035,036 | | Ryan D. Campbell | 11/26/24-STI | $— | $989,700 | $1,979,400 | — | — | — | — | — | $— | $— | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | — | — | — | 2,310 | — | $— | $1,034,949 | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | 1,155 | 4,620 | 9,240 | — | — | $— | $2,358,233 | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | — | — | — | — | 8,902 | $448.03 | $1,035,036 | | Rajesh Kalathur | 11/26/24-STI | $— | $982,523 | $1,965,046 | — | — | — | — | — | $— | $— | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | — | — | — | 2,209 | — | $— | $989,698 | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | 1,104 | 4,418 | 8,836 | — | — | $— | $2,255,124 | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | — | — | — | — | 8,515 | $448.03 | $990,039 | | Deanna M. Kovar | 11/26/24-STI | $— | $932,635 | $1,865,270 | — | — | — | — | — | $— | $— | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | — | — | — | 2,209 | — | $— | $989,698 | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | 1,104 | 4,418 | 8,836 | — | — | $— | $2,255,124 | | | 12/11/24 | $— | $— | $— | — | — | — | — | 8,515 | $448.03 | $990,039 |

  193. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    | (1) For the STI plan award, the grant date is the date the Committee (for the NEOs other than the CEO) and the Board (for the CEO) approved the range of estimated potential future payouts for the performance periods noted under footnotes (2) and (3) below. For equity awards, the grant date is seven calendar days after the first regularly scheduled Board meeting of the fiscal year. |

  194. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    | (2) These columns show the range of potential payouts under the STI plan. The performance period for STI in this table covers fiscal 2025. For actual performance between threshold, target, and maximum, the earned STI award will be interpolated. |

  195. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    | (3) Represents the potential payout range of PSUs granted in December 2024. The number of shares that vest is based on Deere’s revenue growth and total shareholder return relative to the performance peer group with equal weighting for the three-year performance period ending in 2027 and measured as of the end of the performance period. At the end of the three-year performance period, the actual award, delivered as Deere common stock, can range from 0% to 200% of the original grant. |

  196. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    | (4) Represents the number of RSUs granted in December 2024. RSUs vest over three years with 34% vesting on the first anniversary of the grant date, 33% vesting on the second anniversary of the grant date, and 33% vesting on the third anniversary of the grant date, at which time they may be settled in Deere common stock. Prior to settlement, RSUs earn dividend equivalents in cash at the same time as dividends are paid on Deere’s common stock. |

  197. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    | (5) Represents the number of options granted in December 2024. These options vest over three years with 34% vesting on the first anniversary of the grant date, 33% vesting on the second anniversary of the grant date, and 33% vesting on the third anniversary of the grant date. |

  198. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    | (6) The exercise price is the closing price of Deere common stock on the NYSE on the grant date. |

  199. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    | (7) Amounts shown represent the grant date fair value of equity awards granted to the NEOs in fiscal 2025 calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The values in this column exclude the effect of estimated forfeitures. For RSUs, fair value is the market value of the underlying stock on the grant date (which is the same as the exercise price in footnote (6) for stock options). For options, the fair value on the grant date was $116.27, which was calculated using the binomial lattice option pricing model. The grant date fair value of the PSUs assuming a target payout of both the relative revenue growth metric and the relative total shareholder return metric was $448.03 based on the market price of a share of underlying common stock, excluding dividends. |

  200. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    For additional information on the valuation assumptions for each of the awards in the Fiscal 2025 Grants of Plan-Based Awards table, refer to Note 22, “Share-Based Compensation,” of our consolidated financial statements filed with the SEC on our 2025 Form 10-K.

  201. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    | 66 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  202. FISCAL 2025 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  203. OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2025 YEAR-END

    OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2025 YEAR-END The following table itemizes outstanding options, RSUs, and PSUs held by the NEOs:

  204. OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2025 YEAR-END

    | | Option Awards | | | | | Stock Awards | | | | | | | | | | | Number | Market | Equity Incentive | Equity Incentive | | | | Number of | Number of | | | of Shares | Value of | Plan Awards: | Plan Awards: | | | | Securities | Securities | | | or Units | Shares or | Number of | Market or Payout | | | | Underlying | Underlying | | | of Stock | Units of | Unearned Shares, | Value of Unearned | | | | Unexercised | Unexercised | Option | Option | That | Stock That | Units, or Other | Shares, Units, or | | | | Options | Options | Exercise | Expiration | Have Not | Have Not | Rights That Have | Other Rights That | | Name | Grant Date | Exercisable(1) | Unexercisable(1) | Price | Date(2) | Vested(3) | Vested(4) | Not Vested(5) | Have Not Vested(6) | | John C. May | 12/9/2020 | 52,578 | — | $254.83 | 12/9/2030 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/15/2021 | 44,739 | — | $343.94 | 12/15/2031 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/14/2022 | 28,152 | 13,865 | $438.44 | 12/14/2032 | 3,081 | $1,422,282 | — | $— | | | 12/13/2023 | 15,395 | 29,883 | $377.01 | 12/13/2033 | 7,772 | $3,587,788 | 23,552 | $10,872,310 | | | 12/11/2024 | — | 36,597 | $448.03 | 12/11/2034 | 9,497 | $4,384,100 | 18,994 | $8,768,200 | | | | 140,864 | 80,345 | | | 20,350 | $9,394,170 | 42,546 | $19,640,510 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | 12/14/2022 | 5,139 | 2,530 | $438.44 | 12/14/2032 | 562 | $259,436 | — | $— | | | 12/13/2023 | 3,589 | 6,965 | $377.01 | 12/13/2033 | 1,811 | $836,012 | 5,490 | $2,534,349 | | | 12/11/2024 | — | 8,902 | $448.03 | 12/11/2034 | 2,310 | $1,066,365 | 4,620 | $2,132,731 | | | | 8,728 | 18,397 | | | 4,683 | $2,161,813 | 10,110 | $4,667,080 | | Ryan D. Campbell | 12/9/2020 | 8,673 | — | $254.83 | 12/9/2030 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/15/2021 | 12,211 | — | $343.94 | 12/15/2031 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/14/2022 | 5,363 | 2,640 | $438.44 | 12/14/2032 | 587 | $270,977 | — | $— | | | 12/13/2023 | 3,589 | 6,965 | $377.01 | 12/13/2033 | 1,811 | $836,012 | 5,490 | $2,534,349 | | | 12/11/2024 | — | 8,902 | $448.03 | 12/11/2034 | 2,310 | $1,066,365 | 4,620 | $2,132,731 | | | | 29,836 | 18,507 | | | 4,708 | $2,173,354 | 10,110 | $4,667,080 | | Rajesh Kalathur | 12/13/2017 | 15,379 | — | $151.95 | 12/13/2027 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/12/2018 | 13,370 | — | $148.14 | 12/12/2028 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/11/2019 | 20,156 | — | $169.70 | 12/11/2029 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/9/2020 | 10,508 | — | $254.83 | 12/9/2030 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/15/2021 | 8,448 | — | $343.94 | 12/15/2031 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/14/2022 | 5,363 | 2,640 | $438.44 | 12/14/2032 | 587 | $270,977 | — | $— | | | 12/13/2023 | 3,589 | 6,965 | $377.01 | 12/13/2033 | 1,811 | $836,012 | 5,490 | $2,534,349 | | | 12/11/2024 | — | 8,515 | $448.03 | 12/11/2034 | 2,209 | $1,019,741 | 4,418 | $2,039,481 | | | | 76,813 | 18,120 | | | 4,607 | $2,126,730 | 9,908 | $4,573,830 | | Deanna M. Kovar | 12/11/2019 | 1,290 | — | $169.70 | 12/11/2029 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/9/2020 | 1,992 | — | $254.83 | 12/9/2030 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/15/2021 | 2,018 | — | $343.94 | 12/15/2031 | — | $— | — | $— | | | 12/14/2022 | 920 | 452 | $438.44 | 12/14/2032 | 140 | $64,628 | — | $— | | | 12/13/2023 | 3,121 | 6,057 | $377.01 | 12/13/2033 | 1,575 | $727,067 | 4,774 | $2,203,822 | | | 12/11/2024 | — | 8,515 | $448.03 | 12/11/2034 | 2,209 | $1,019,741 | 4,418 | $2,039,481 | | | | 9,341 | 15,024 | | | 3,924 | $1,811,436 | 9,192 | $4,243,303 |

  205. OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2025 YEAR-END

    | (1) Options become vested and exercisable over three years with 34% vesting on the first anniversary of the grant date, 33% vesting on the second anniversary of the grant date, and 33% vesting on the third anniversary of the grant date. |

  206. OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2025 YEAR-END

    | (2) Options expire 10 years from the grant date. |

  207. OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2025 YEAR-END

    | (3) RSUs granted in fiscal 2025 vest over three years with 34% vesting on the first anniversary of the grant date, 33% vesting on the second anniversary of the grant date, and 33% vesting on the third anniversary of the grant date, at which time they may be settled in Deere common stock. RSUs granted prior to fiscal 2023 vest three years after the grant date, at which time they are settled in Deere common stock. |

  208. OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2025 YEAR-END

    | (4) The amount shown represents the number of RSUs that have not vested multiplied by the closing price for Deere common stock on the NYSE as of November 2, 2025 which was $461.63. |

  209. OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2025 YEAR-END

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 67 |

  210. OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2025 YEAR-END

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  211. OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2025 YEAR-END

    | (5) For PSUs granted in fiscal 2023, the three-year performance period ended on November 2, 2025. The final payout determination was made by the Committee in December 2025 and was settled in Deere common stock on December 14, 2025 (the third anniversary of the grant date). As discussed in the CD&A under “Long-term Incentive PSU Payout for Performance Period Ended 2025,” the PSUs had no payout due to the revenue growth relative to the performance peer group performing below the threshold. For the PSUs granted in fiscal years 2024 and 2025 (fiscal 2024-2026 and fiscal 2025-2027 performance periods), the number of PSUs will be determined at the end of each three-year performance period based upon performance as determined by revenue growth and by total shareholder return both relative to the performance peer group at the end of the performance period. The final payout can range from 0% to 200%. The amounts shown for the fiscal 2024 and 2025 grants represent target performance. |

  212. OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2025 YEAR-END

    | (6) The amount shown represents the number of PSUs described in footnote (5) to this table multiplied by the closing price for Deere common stock on the NYSE as of November 2, 2025, which was $461.63. |

  213. FISCAL 2025 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

    FISCAL 2025 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED The following table provides information regarding option exercises and vesting of RSUs and PSUs during fiscal 2025. These options and stock awards were granted in prior fiscal years and are not related to performance solely in fiscal 2025:

  214. FISCAL 2025 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

    | | Option Awards | | Stock Awards | | | | Number of Shares | Value Realized | Number of Shares | Value Realized | | Name | Acquired on Exercise(1) | on Exercise(2) | Acquired on Vesting(3) | on Vesting(4) | | John C. May | — | $— | 25,448 | $11,208,317 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | — | $— | 1,796 | $791,030 | | Ryan D. Campbell | — | $— | 6,531 | $2,876,514 | | Rajesh Kalathur | 24,580 | $9,833,386 | 4,987 | $2,196,474 | | Deanna M. Kovar | — | $— | 1,476 | $650,089 |

  215. FISCAL 2025 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

    | (1) Represents the total number of shares that were exercised before any withholding of shares to pay the exercise price and taxes. |

  216. FISCAL 2025 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

    | (2) Value realized on exercise is based on the market price upon exercise minus the exercise price (the grant price). |

  217. FISCAL 2025 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

    | (3) Represents the number of RSUs and PSUs that vested during fiscal 2025. RSUs included represent awards granted in fiscal 2022, 2023, and 2024. |

  218. FISCAL 2025 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

    The three-year performance period for PSUs granted in fiscal 2022 ended on October 27, 2024, and such PSUs vested on December 15, 2024. The final payout determination, made by the Committee in November 2024 for the NEOS other than the CEO and by the Board in November 2024 for the CEO, reflects revenue growth comparable to the 42nd percentile of the performance peer group. Accordingly, the resulting payout of PSUs was equal to 76.0% of the target award. The following table shows the number of RSUs and PSUs that vested during fiscal 2025:

  219. FISCAL 2025 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

    | Name | RSUs | PSUs | | John C. May | 15,372 | 10,076 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | 1,796 | — | | Ryan D. Campbell | 3,782 | 2,749 | | Rajesh Kalathur | 3,085 | 1,902 | | Deanna M. Kovar | 1,476 | — |

  220. FISCAL 2025 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

    | (4) Represents the number of RSUs and PSUs vested multiplied by the closing price of Deere common stock on the NYSE as of the vesting date. |

  221. FISCAL 2025 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

    | 68 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  222. FISCAL 2025 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  223. Pension Benefits

    Pension Benefits All of our NEOs are eligible to participate in pension plans that provide benefits based on years of service and pay. The Fiscal 2025 Pension Benefits Table below shows information about three pension plans:

  224. Pension Benefits

    | the Pension Plan for Salaried Employees (“Salaried Plan”), a qualified defined benefit pension plan; | the Senior Supplementary Pension Benefit Plan (“Senior Supplementary Plan”), a nonqualified pension plan; and | the John Deere Supplemental Pension Benefit Plan (“Deere Supplemental Plan”), a nonqualified pension plan. |

  225. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

  226. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | | | Assumed | Number of Years | Present Value of | | Name | Plan Name(1) | Retirement Age(2) | of Credited Service(3) | Accumulated Benefit(4) | | John C. May | Salaried Plan | 65 | 28.6 | $739,890 | | | Supplementary Plan | 65 | 28.6 | $4,488,220 | | | Supplemental Plan | 65 | 24.8 | $1,577,666 | | | TOTAL | | | $6,805,776 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | Salaried Plan | 65 | 26.4 | $317,532 | | | Supplementary Plan | 65 | 26.4 | $476,751 | | | Supplemental Plan | 65 | — | $— | | | TOTAL | | | $794,283 | | Ryan D. Campbell | Salaried Plan | 65 | 18.0 | $394,723 | | | Supplementary Plan | 65 | 18.0 | $1,077,475 | | | Supplemental Plan | 65 | 13.8 | $406,372 | | | TOTAL | | | $1,878,570 | | Rajesh Kalathur | Salaried Plan | 65 | 28.4 | $735,819 | | | Supplementary Plan | 65 | 28.4 | $2,360,584 | | | Supplemental Plan | 65 | 19.8 | $752,588 | | | TOTAL | | | $3,848,991 | | Deanna M. Kovar | Salaried Plan | 65 | 25.7 | $347,253 | | | Supplementary Plan | 65 | 25.7 | $328,248 | | | Supplemental Plan | 65 | 11.1 | $107,565 | | | TOTAL | | | $783,066 |

  227. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | (1) Benefits are provided under the Salaried Plan, the Senior Supplementary Plan, and the Deere Supplemental Plan. |

  228. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | (2) The assumed retirement age is the normal retirement age as defined by the Salaried Plan. |

  229. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | (3) Years and months of service credit under each plan as of November 2, 2025. The years of credited service are equal to years of eligible service with Deere for the Salaried and Senior Supplementary Plan. Service credit under the Deere Supplemental Plan has been based on service at grade 13 or above since January 1, 1997. |

  230. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | (4) The actuarial present value of the accumulated benefit is shown as of November 2, 2025 and is provided as a straight-life annuity for the qualified pension plan and a lump sum for nonqualified pension plan benefits. Pension benefits are not reduced for any social security benefits or other offset amounts an NEO may receive. |

  231. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    The actuarial present value is calculated by estimating expected future payments starting at an assumed retirement age, weighting the estimated payments by the estimated probability of surviving to each post-retirement age, and discounting the weighted payments at an assumed discount rate to reflect the time value of money. The actuarial present value represents an estimate of the amount that, if invested today at the discount rate, would be sufficient on an average basis to provide estimated future payments based on the current accumulated benefit. Actual benefit present values will vary from these estimates depending on many factors, including actual retirement age. The following assumptions were used to calculate the present value of the accumulated benefit:

  232. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | ◾ | Each of the NEOs continues as an executive until the earliest age at which the NEO could retire without any benefit reduction due to age or normal retirement age, whichever is earlier, as defined in the Salaried Plan. |

  233. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | ◾ | Other assumptions relate to those used for financial accounting: |

  234. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | ◾ | Present value amounts were determined based on financial accounting discount rates equal to 5.42% for the Salaried Plan, 5.06% for the Senior Supplementary Plan, and 4.66% for the Deere Supplemental Plan. |

  235. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | ◾ | Benefits subject to a lump sum distribution were determined using an interest rate of 4.67%. |

  236. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | ◾ | The mortality table used for the Salaried Plan was the 93.6%PRI2012WC table (with mortality projection scale MP 2021, as published by the Society of Actuaries), and the mortality table used for the Supplementary and Deere Supplemental Plans was the 2026 417 (e) table, as published by the IRS. |

  237. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | ◾ | Pensionable earnings are calculated for the most recently completed fiscal year using base pay as an estimate (assuming one base pay increase of 3.5% – 4.5%, depending on age), with no future increase, and the STI bonus at target. Pensionable earnings for prior years are calculated based on actual base pay and actual STI earned for prior years. |

  238. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 69 |

  239. FISCAL 2025 PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  240. SALARIED PLAN

    SALARIED PLAN The Salaried Plan is a qualified plan subject to certain IRS limitations on benefits and is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Deere makes contributions to and benefits are paid from a tax-exempt pension trust. Eligible NEOs participate under the Contemporary formula. The Salaried Plan was closed to new participants effective January 1, 2023. “Career Average Pay” is used in computing retirement benefits under the Contemporary formula. Career Average Pay is calculated using salary plus STI (up to IRS limits). Deere makes additional contributions to the 401(k) retirement savings accounts of salaried employees participating in this option. The formula for calculating Contemporary benefits is:

  241. SALARIED PLAN

    | Career Average Pay | | Years of Service | | 1.5% |

  242. SALARIED PLAN

    Early retirement eligibility is the earlier of:

  243. SALARIED PLAN

    | Age 55 with 10 or more years of service; or | Age 65 with five or more years of service. |

  244. SALARIED PLAN

    Pension payments are reduced by 4% for each year the employee is under the unreduced benefits age upon retirement. Eligibility to retire with unreduced benefits occurs at age 67.

  245. Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

    Nonqualified Deferred Compensation The Fiscal 2025 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table shows information about two programs:

  246. Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

    | the John Deere Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan (“Deferred Plan”), a nonqualified deferred compensation plan; and | the John Deere Defined Contribution Restoration Plan (“DCRP”), a nonqualified savings plan. |

  247. FISCAL 2025 NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION TABLE

    FISCAL 2025 NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION TABLE

  248. FISCAL 2025 NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION TABLE

    | | | Executive Contributions in | Registrant Contributions | Aggregate Earnings in | Aggregate Balance at | | Name | | Last FY(1) | in Last FY(2) | Last FY(3) | Last FYE(4) | | John C. May | Deferred Plan | $— | $— | $26,711 | $151,315 | | | DCRP | $439,243 | $732,072 | $1,784,305 | $11,013,858 | | | TOTAL | $439,243 | $732,072 | $1,811,016 | $11,165,173 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | DCRP | $135,192 | $225,321 | $245,484 | $1,299,380 | | | TOTAL | $135,192 | $225,321 | $245,484 | $1,299,380 | | Ryan D. Campbell | DCRP | $143,309 | $238,848 | $380,650 | $2,718,435 | | | TOTAL | $143,309 | $238,848 | $380,650 | $2,718,435 | | Rajesh Kalathur | DCRP | $142,118 | $236,864 | $1,078,248 | $6,805,184 | | | TOTAL | $142,118 | $236,864 | $1,078,248 | $6,805,184 | | Deanna M. Kovar | Deferred Plan | $859,141 | $— | $168,873 | $1,381,445 | | | DCRP | $130,426 | $217,374 | $106,174 | $857,091 | | | TOTAL | $989,567 | $217,374 | $275,047 | $2,238,536 |

  249. FISCAL 2025 NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION TABLE

    | (1) The amounts in this column represent employee compensation deferrals that are included in the Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table under the “Salary” and “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” columns. |

  250. FISCAL 2025 NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION TABLE

    | (2) The amounts in this column associated with the DCRP represent Deere’s contributions during the fiscal year as included in the Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table under the “All Other Compensation” column. |

  251. FISCAL 2025 NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION TABLE

    | (3) The Deferred Plan and DCRP credit earnings based on participant-selected investments that generally mirror the Company’s 401(k) options. These plans do not provide above-market or preferential earnings under SEC rules; therefore, no portion of the aggregate earnings shown is included in the Summary Compensation Table. |

  252. FISCAL 2025 NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION TABLE

    | (4) Of the aggregate balance, the following amounts were reported as compensation in the Summary Compensation Table in prior years: $2,570,775 (May); $326,677 (Jepsen); $822,224 (Campbell); $1,458,922 (Kalathur); and N/A (Kovar). |

  253. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control The Change in Control Severance Program (CIC Program) includes a “double trigger” approach, under which participants will receive severance benefits only if both a change in control and qualifying termination occur. A “qualifying termination” is either:

  254. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | ◾ | Deere’s termination of an executive’s employment within the six months preceding or the 24 months following a change in control for reasons other than death, disability, or “cause” (defined as an executive’s willful and continued nonperformance of duties after written demand; willful conduct that is demonstrably and materially injurious to Deere; or illegal activity); or |

  255. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | ◾ | An executive’s termination of his or her own employment for “good reason” (defined as material reductions or alterations in an executive’s authority, duties, or responsibilities; change in office location of at least 50 miles from the executive’s current residence; material reductions in an executive’s participation in certain Deere compensation plans; or certain other breaches of the covenants in the CIC Program) within 24 months following a change in control. |

  256. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    The CIC Program defines the following as “change in control” events:

  257. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | ◾ | Any “person,” as defined in the Exchange Act (with certain exceptions), acquires 30% or more of Deere’s voting securities; |

  258. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | ◾ | A majority of Deere’s directors are replaced without the approval of at least two-thirds of the existing directors or directors previously approved by the then-existing directors; |

  259. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | ◾ | Any merger or business combination of Deere and another company, unless the outstanding voting securities of Deere prior to the transaction continue to represent at least 60% of the voting securities of the new company; or |

  260. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | ◾ | Deere is completely liquidated or all, or substantially all, of Deere’s assets are sold or disposed. |

  261. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    Benefits provided under the CIC Program and other benefit plans are described in the footnotes to the following table. Although not reflected in the table, the CIC Program provides that Deere will pay the executive’s reasonable legal fees and expenses if the executive must enforce the program terms. Under the CIC Program, the executive agrees: (a) not to disclose or use for his or her own purposes confidential and proprietary Deere information and (b) for a period of two years following termination of employment, not to induce Deere employees to leave Deere or to interfere with Deere’s business. In addition, the John Deere Omnibus Equity and Incentive Plan (Omnibus Plan), the John Deere 2020 Equity and Incentive Plan, the LTIC plan, and the Deferred Plan each contain change in control provisions that may trigger payments. Under the Omnibus Plan and John Deere 2020 Equity and Incentive Plan, unless the Board or the Committee determines otherwise, all then-outstanding equity awards would vest and restriction periods would end only if there were both a change in control and a qualifying termination. All outstanding RSUs would be cashed out as of the date of the change in control and the executive would have the right to exercise all outstanding options. Unvested PSUs are cashed out at a target award level at the change of control price described in the Omnibus Plan and John Deere 2020 Equity and Incentive Plan. Such potential payments are disclosed adjacent to “Change in Control and Qualifying Termination” in the following table. The LTIC plan provides for payment upon a change in control based on actual performance results to date for all performance periods then in progress. Under the Deferred Plan, in the event of certain changes in control, the Committee may elect to terminate the plan within 12 months and distribute all account balances or the Committee may decide to keep the Deferred Plan in effect and modify it to reflect the impact of the change in control.

  262. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | 72 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  263. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  264. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    The following table includes estimated potential payments that would have been due to each NEO if a change in control event had occurred and, if applicable, the NEO experienced a qualifying termination as of the end of fiscal 2025. Although the calculations are intended to provide reasonable estimates of the potential payments, they are based on numerous assumptions, as described in the footnotes, and may not represent the actual amount each NEO would receive if a change in control occurred. The payments listed represent the incremental amounts due to NEOs beyond what the NEOs would have received without the change in control. Not included in this table are the following payments to which the NEOs are already entitled and which are reported elsewhere in this Proxy Statement:

  265. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | ◾ | Amounts already earned under the STI and LTIC plans (reported in the Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table and footnotes) |

  266. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | ◾ | The exercise of outstanding vested options (reported in the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2025 Year-End table) |

  267. Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Change in Control

    | ◾ | Distribution of nonqualified deferred compensation (reported in the Fiscal 2025 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table) |

  268. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

  269. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | | | | | | | Welfare Defined Contribution | | | | Name | Salary(1) | STI(2) | LTIC(3) | Stock Awards(4) | Stock Options(5) | Benefits(6) | Plans(7) | Total Payments(8) | | John C. May | | | | | | | | | | –Change in Control and Qualifying Termination | $5,074,867 | $10,133,152 | $— | $26,538,647 | $— | $78,627 | $766,572 | $42,591,865 | | Joshua A. Jepsen | | | | | | | | | | –Change in Control and Qualifying Termination | $1,884,528 | $1,881,448 | $— | $8,087,758 | $769,116 | $40,721 | $259,821 | $12,923,392 | | Ryan D. Campbell | | | | | | | | | | –Change in Control and Qualifying Termination | $1,982,640 | $1,979,400 | $— | $8,154,232 | $771,667 | $42,531 | $273,348 | $13,203,818 | | Rajesh Kalathur | | | | | | | | | | –Change in Control and Qualifying Termination | $1,968,264 | $1,965,046 | $— | $5,887,629 | $— | $46,226 | $271,364 | $10,138,529 | | Deanna M. Kovar | | | | | | | | | | –Change in Control and Qualifying Termination | $1,874,112 | $1,865,270 | $— | $6,054,739 | $638,829 | $29,746 | $251,874 | $10,714,570 |

  270. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (1) In the event of a change in control and qualifying termination, the CIC Program provides for a lump-sum payment of 2.99 times the annual base salary for the CEO and 2 times annual base salary for other NEOs. |

  271. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (2) In the event of a change in control and qualifying termination, the CIC Program provides for a lump-sum payment of 2.99 times (CEO) and 2 times (other NEOs) the target STI bonus amount for the fiscal year in which the termination occurs. In addition, the NEO is entitled to a prorated STI award for the current year. Since the change in control calculations in this table are made as of the end of the fiscal year, the prorated award for the current year is equal to the STI earned for the current fiscal year as reported in the Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table under the column “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” and is not duplicated in this table. |

  272. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (3) The LTIC plan contains a change in control provision that entitles participants, as of the date of a change in control, to a lump-sum LTIC payment based on actual performance results to date for all performance periods then in progress. The payout for the three-year performance period ended with fiscal 2025 is reported in footnote (4) of the Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table and is not duplicated in this table. |

  273. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (4) Vesting of RSUs and PSUs does not accelerate unless there is both a change in control and a qualifying termination. In such cases, the vesting and restriction requirements no longer apply. Unvested RSUs will be cashed out and unvested PSUs will be cashed out at a target award level. |

  274. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    For purposes of the table, all unvested PSUs and RSUs are valued based on the closing price for Deere common stock on the NYSE as of November 2, 2025, which was $461.63. Vested RSUs are not included since they have been earned and are included on the Fiscal 2025 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table. Unvested PSUs and RSUs are included in the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2025 Year-End table.

  275. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (5) Vesting of outstanding stock options does not accelerate in the event of a change in control only. Instead, outstanding stock options will continue to vest over the three-year vesting period, subject to continued employment conditions. |

  276. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    In the event of a change in control and qualifying termination, all outstanding stock options vest and can be exercised immediately. Since Messrs. May and Kalathur are eligible for retirement and all unvested stock options would vest immediately on the date of such event, there is no incremental benefit of the accelerated vesting for these individuals. For Messrs. Jepsen and Campbell and Ms. Kovar, who are not eligible for retirement, the amount represents the number of outstanding, unexercisable options multiplied by the difference between the closing price for Deere common stock on the NYSE as of November 2, 2025, which was $461.63, and the option exercise prices. These amounts are included in the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2025 Year-End table.

  277. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (6) In the event of a change in control and qualifying termination, the CIC Program provides for continuation of health care, life, accidental death and dismemberment, and disability insurance for three full years for the CEO and two full years for the senior officers at the same premium cost and coverage. This benefit will be discontinued if the NEO receives similar benefits from a subsequent employer during this three-year period. |

  278. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (7) In the event of a change in control and qualifying termination, the CIC Program includes a cash payment equal to Deere’s contributions on behalf of each of the NEOs under our defined contribution plans for the plan year preceding termination (or, if greater, for the plan year immediately preceding the change in control). |

  279. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (8) The amounts set forth under “Deferred Compensation” and “Accumulated Pension Benefit” in the Fiscal 2025 Potential Payments upon Termination of Employment other than following a Change in Control table would also be payable upon a change in control and qualifying termination. |

  280. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 73 |

  281. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  282. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OTHER THAN FOLLOWING A CHANGE IN CONTROL

    FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OTHER THAN FOLLOWING A CHANGE IN CONTROL The following table summarizes the estimated payments to be made to the NEOs under our plans or established practices in the event of termination of employment due to death, disability, retirement, termination without cause, termination for cause, or voluntary separation. Although the calculations are intended to provide reasonable estimates of the potential payments, they are based on numerous assumptions, as described in the footnotes, and may not represent the actual amounts the NEOs would receive. The amounts shown assume the termination event occurred at the end of fiscal 2025 and the NEO was actively employed until that time.

  283. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

  284. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | | | | | | | | Accumulated | | | Name | Salary(1) | STI(2) | LTIC(3) | Stock Awards(4) | Stock Options(5) | Deferred Compensation(6) | Pension Benefit(7) | Total Payments | | John C. May | | | | | | | | | | Death | $— | $5,450,551 | $3,431,377 | $29,034,680 | $21,441,980 | $11,165,173 | $4,706,699 | $75,230,460 | | Disability | $37,890,223 | $5,450,551 | $3,431,377 | $29,034,680 | $21,441,980 | $11,165,173 | $10,355,893 | $118,769,877 | | Retirement | $— | $5,450,551 | $3,431,377 | $29,034,680 | $21,441,980 | $11,165,173 | $8,594,255 | $79,118,016 | | Termination Without Cause | $1,697,280 | $5,450,551 | $3,431,377 | $— | $— | $11,165,173 | $8,594,255 | $30,338,636 | | Termination For Cause | $— | $5,450,551 | $3,431,377 | $— | $— | $11,165,173 | $8,594,255 | $28,641,356 | | Voluntary Separation(8) | | | | | | | | | | Joshua A. Jepsen | | | | | | | | | | Death | $— | $1,512,966 | $1,481,640 | $6,828,893 | $1,191,990 | $1,299,380 | $488,669 | $12,803,538 | | Disability | $16,067,061 | $1,512,966 | $1,481,640 | $6,828,893 | $1,191,990 | $1,299,380 | $1,594,385 | $29,976,315 | | Retirement(9) | | | | | | | | | | Termination Without Cause | $942,264 | $1,512,966 | $1,481,640 | $— | $— | $1,299,380 | $905,188 | $6,141,438 | | Termination For Cause | $— | $1,512,966 | $1,481,640 | $— | $— | $1,299,380 | $905,188 | $5,199,174 | | Voluntary Separation | $— | $1,512,966 | $1,481,640 | $— | $— | $1,299,380 | $905,188 | $5,199,174 | | Ryan D. Campbell | | | | | | | | | | Death | $— | $1,591,735 | $1,558,778 | $6,840,433 | $4,430,425 | $2,718,435 | $1,057,481 | $18,197,287 | | Disability | $17,058,269 | $1,591,735 | $1,558,778 | $6,840,433 | $4,430,425 | $2,718,435 | $3,793,603 | $37,991,678 | | Retirement(9) | | | | | | | | | | Termination Without Cause | $784,795 | $1,591,735 | $1,558,778 | $— | $— | $2,718,435 | $1,944,905 | $8,598,648 | | Termination For Cause | $— | $1,591,735 | $1,558,778 | $— | $— | $2,718,435 | $1,944,905 | $7,813,853 | | Voluntary Separation | $— | $1,591,735 | $1,558,778 | $— | $— | $2,718,435 | $1,944,905 | $7,813,853 | | Rajesh Kalathur | | | | | | | | | | Death | $— | $1,580,192 | $1,547,474 | $6,700,559 | $19,199,843 | $6,805,184 | $2,522,704 | $38,355,956 | | Disability | $10,796,210 | $1,580,192 | $1,547,474 | $6,700,559 | $19,199,843 | $6,805,184 | $5,253,194 | $51,882,656 | | Retirement | $— | $1,580,192 | $1,547,474 | $6,700,559 | $19,199,843 | $6,805,184 | $4,622,950 | $40,456,202 | | Termination Without Cause | $984,132 | $1,580,192 | $1,547,474 | $— | $— | $6,805,184 | $4,622,950 | $15,539,932 | | Termination For Cause | $— | $1,580,192 | $1,547,474 | $— | $— | $6,805,184 | $4,622,950 | $14,555,800 | | Voluntary Separation(8) | | | | | | | | | | Deanna M. Kovar | | | | | | | | | | Death | $— | $1,499,957 | $1,468,900 | $6,054,739 | $1,950,297 | $2,238,536 | $463,038 | $13,675,467 | | Disability | $11,481,800 | $1,499,957 | $1,468,900 | $6,054,739 | $1,950,297 | $2,238,536 | $1,789,885 | $26,484,114 | | Retirement(9) | | | | | | | | | | Termination Without Cause | $937,056 | $1,499,957 | $1,468,900 | $— | $— | $2,238,536 | $899,667 | $7,044,116 | | Termination For Cause | $— | $1,499,957 | $1,468,900 | $— | $— | $2,238,536 | $899,667 | $6,107,060 | | Voluntary Separation | $— | $1,499,957 | $1,468,900 | $— | $— | $2,238,536 | $899,667 | $6,107,060 |

  285. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (1) Our NEOs do not have employment agreements. However, we have severance guidelines that provide compensation if termination is initiated by Deere for reasons other than cause. Our severance guidelines provide for payment of one-half month of salary plus another one-half month of salary for each complete year of employment, up to a maximum of one year’s salary. We may elect to pay severance in either a lump sum or via salary continuance, unless the amount of severance exceeds two times the applicable limit under Section 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code, in which case severance will be paid in a lump sum. |

  286. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    Under our Long-Term Disability Plan, if disabled before age 62, NEOs receive monthly benefits until age 65 equal to 60% of their salary plus the average of the three STI awards received immediately prior to the start of disability. The amount shown for disability represents the present value of the monthly benefit from the time of the disability, assumed to be November 2, 2025, until the time the NEO reaches age 65.

  287. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (2) Under all termination events, the amount of STI earned for the fiscal year ended November 2, 2025 would be payable in a lump sum no later than March 15 of the next calendar year. This amount is reported in the Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table under the column “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation.” |

  288. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | 74 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  289. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  290. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (3) Under all termination events, the amount of LTIC earned for the performance period ended November 2, 2025 would be payable in a lump sum no later than March 15 of the next calendar year. This amount is reported in footnote (4) to the Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table. |

  291. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (4) In the event of death, disability, or retirement, the most recent RSU and PSU awards are prorated based on the number of months the NEO remains employed in the year of grant. The remaining units are forfeited. All unvested and non-forfeited RSUs will vest on the date of separation from service, while PSUs that are not forfeited will continue to convert to shares at the end of the three-year performance period based on the performance metrics. When applicable restrictions lapse, vested RSUs will be converted to shares of common stock. |

  292. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    In the event of termination with or without cause or voluntary separation, any vested RSUs will be cashed out. All unvested PSUs and RSUs will be forfeited. The amounts shown in the table correspond to vested RSUs that must be held until retirement, including RSUs that vest as a result of the termination of employment. The value of PSUs granted in fiscal 2023, the performance period for which ended on November 2, 2025, is based upon actual performance. The value of PSUs granted in fiscal 2024 and 2025 is based upon target performance. See footnotes (5) and (6) to the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2025 Year-End table for performance information relating to each outstanding tranche of PSUs. All amounts shown in the table are based on the closing price for Deere common stock on the NYSE as of November 2, 2025, which was $461.63.

  293. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (5) In the event of death, all outstanding stock options vest immediately and the heirs must exercise those options within one year. In the event of disability or retirement, vesting accelerates for all outstanding stock options, but occurs no sooner than six months following the grant date. These options expire within five years. In the event of retirement, the most recent stock option awards granted to the NEOs are prorated based on the number of months the NEOs remain actively employed in the year of grant. The remaining options are forfeited. The amount shown in this table represents the number of stock options multiplied by the difference between the closing price for Deere common stock on the NYSE as of November 2, 2025, and the option exercise prices. |

  294. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    These outstanding stock options are reported in the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2025 Year-End table. In the event of a termination other than for death, disability, or retirement, all outstanding stock options are forfeited.

  295. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (6) In all cases, balances held in the U.S. nonqualified deferred compensation plans are payable to the employee. These amounts are reported in the Fiscal 2025 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table under Deferred Plan and DCRP. |

  296. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (7) The present value of the accumulated pension benefit was calculated using the following assumptions: |

  297. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | ◾ | Present value amounts were determined based on a discount rate of 5.42% for the Salaried Plan, 5.06% for the Senior Supplementary Plan, and 4.66% for the Deere Supplemental Plan |

  298. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | ◾ | Lump-sum distribution amounts were determined using an interest rate of 4.67% for the Senior Supplementary and Deere Supplemental Plans |

  299. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | ◾ | The mortality table used for the Salaried Plan was 93.6%PRI2012WC with mortality projection scale MP2021 |

  300. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | ◾ | The mortality table used for the Senior Supplementary and Deere Supplemental Plans was 2026 417 (e) table as published by the IRS |

  301. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | ◾ | Pensionable earnings were based on actual base salary and forecasted STI for fiscal 2025 |

  302. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    Following are additional explanations related to the various scenarios:

  303. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | ◾ | Death: This amount represents the present value of the accrued survivor benefit as of November 2, 2025 |

  304. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | ◾ | Disability: This amount assumes service through age 65 and includes service credit for time on long-term disability |

  305. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | ◾ | Retirement: For the NEOs eligible to retire, this amount represents the present value of the accrued benefits if they were to retire as of November 2, 2025 |

  306. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | ◾ | Termination Without Cause, Termination For Cause, and Voluntary Separation: This amount represents the present value of the accrued benefit as of November 2, 2025 |

  307. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (8) Since Messrs. May and Kalathur are eligible for retirement, the scenario for Voluntary Separation is not applicable. Under this scenario, they would retire. |

  308. FISCAL 2025 POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON termination of employment other than following a CHANGE IN CONTROL

    | (9) Since Messrs. Jepsen and Campbell and Ms. Kovar are not eligible for normal or early retirement, this scenario is not applicable. |

  309. Pay Ratio Disclosure

    Pay Ratio Disclosure Presented below is the ratio of annual total compensation of our CEO to the annual total compensation of our median employee (excluding our CEO). The ratio shown below is a reasonable estimate calculated in a manner consistent with Item 402 of Regulation S-K under the Exchange Act. Per SEC guidelines, the median employee is only required to be determined once every three years provided there have been no changes to the employee population or compensation arrangements that cause Deere to reasonably believe there will be a significant change in the pay ratio disclosure. There have been no material changes to our employee population or compensation arrangements in 2025 that would affect the pay ratio disclosure. Our median employee was identified using the Company’s global full-time, part-time, temporary, and seasonal employees employed as of September 1, 2024. As of that date, we had 71,423 employees globally, with 27,274 employees located in the U.S. and 44,149 located outside the U.S. As permitted under the “5% de minimis exemption” of the pay ratio disclosure rule, we excluded all employees in 27 countries(1), which totaled 2,579, or 3.6%, of our total employee population. After the exclusions, 27,274 employees in the U.S. and 41,570 employees located outside the U.S. were considered for identifying the median employee. To identify the median employee, we used annualized base pay as of September 1, 2024, as our consistently applied compensation measure. For salaried employees, this included annualized base salary. For hourly employees, this included annual hourly wages excluding overtime, bonuses, or other earnings. Base pay was annualized for permanent employees not employed a full year in 2024. Base pay paid in foreign currencies was converted to U.S. dollars based on exchange rates in effect on August 23, 2024, which is considered the August year-to-date average exchange rate.

  310. Pay Ratio Disclosure

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 75 |

  311. Pay Ratio Disclosure

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  312. Pay Ratio Disclosure

    Using this methodology, we identified our median employee to be a full-time, hourly employee located in the U.S. The annual total compensation was calculated in accordance with the SEC rules applicable to the Summary Compensation Table. The annual total compensation of our employee identified at median using the above methodology for fiscal 2025 was $147,019. Mr. May’s annual total compensation as presented in the Fiscal 2025 Summary Compensation Table was $27,925,424. Calculated in this manner, the ratio of the CEO’s total compensation to our median employee’s total compensation for fiscal 2025 was about 190 to 1.

  313. Pay Ratio Disclosure

    | (1) The countries and approximate number of employees excluded from the calculation are as follows: Australia (362), Austria (251), Belgium (32), Bulgaria (18), Denmark (32), Estonia (11), Georgia (7), Hungary (21), Ireland (24), Italy (111), Japan (24), Latvia (10), Lithuania (21), Malaysia (36), Netherlands (214), Norway (56), Poland (362), Romania (34), Russia (43), Singapore (44), South Africa (158), Sweden (162), Taiwan (35), Thailand (67), Turkey (63), Ukraine (45), and United Kingdom (336). |

  314. pay versus performance Disclosure

    pay versus performance Disclosure In accordance with rules adopted by the SEC pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, we provide the following disclosure regarding executive compensation for our principal executive officer (PEO) and Non-PEO NEOs and Company performance for the fiscal years listed below. The Committee did not consider the pay versus performance disclosure below in making its pay decisions for any of the years shown.

  315. Pay versus Performance

    Pay versus Performance

  316. Pay versus Performance

    | | | | Average | Average | Value of Initial | | | | | | Summary | | Summary | Compensation | Fixed $100 Investment | | | Operating | | | Compensation | Compensation | Compensation Table | Actually Paid | based on:(4) | | | Return on | | Fiscal | Table Total | Actually Paid | Total for Non-PEO | to Non-PEO | | Peer Group | | Operating | | Year | for PEO(1) ($) | to PEO(1)(2)(3) ($) | NEOs(1) ($) | NEOs(1)(2)(3) ($) | TSR ($) | TSR ($) | Net Income(5) | Assets(6) | | 2025 | $27,925,424 | $14,950,301 | $7,547,034 | $6,063,911 | 217.99 | 221.76 | 4,998 | 21.7% | | 2024 | $27,801,672 | $31,011,148 | $7,574,559 | $8,156,223 | 189.96 | 190.66 | 7,088 | 35.9% | | 2023 | $26,722,519 | $28,995,124 | $7,763,381 | $8,503,136 | 165.72 | 133.62 | 10,155 | 52.5% | | 2022 | $20,300,151 | $38,631,080 | $5,243,700 | $8,863,842 | 179.84 | 128.81 | 7,130 | 39.8% | | 2021 | $19,912,826 | $48,000,087 | $6,571,828 | $15,050,369 | 153.17 | 139.83 | 5,965 | 38.1% |

  317. Pay versus Performance

    | (1) Mr. May was our PEO for each year presented. The individuals comprising the Non-PEO NEOs for each year presented are listed below. |

  318. Pay versus Performance

    | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | | Ryan D. Campbell | Ryan D. Campbell | Ryan D. Campbell | Ryan D. Campbell | Ryan D. Campbell | | Marc A. Howze | Marc A. Howze | Joshua A. Jepsen | Joshua A. Jepsen | Joshua A. Jepsen | | Rajesh Kalathur | Joshua A. Jepsen | Cory J. Reed | Rajesh Kalathur | Rajesh Kalathur | | Cory J. Reed | Mary K. W. Jones | Justin R. Rose | Cory J. Reed | Deanna M. Kovar | | | Rajesh Kalathur | | | | | | Cory J. Reed | | | |

  319. Pay versus Performance

    | (2) Compensation Actually Paid amounts are calculated using the fair value or change in fair value, as applicable, of equity award adjustments in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The valuation assumptions used to calculate such fair values did not materially differ from those disclosed at the time of grant. |

  320. Pay versus Performance

    | (3) Compensation Actually Paid reflects adjustments made to total compensation amounts as reported in the Summary Compensation Table for the applicable year for the PEO and Non-PEO NEOs, as set forth below, computed in accordance with Item 402(v) of Regulation S-K. Equity values are calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. |

  321. Pay versus Performance

    | | | | | Exclusion of | | | | | Summary | Exclusion of | Inclusion of | Stock Awards | | | | | Compensation | Change in | Pension Service | and Option | Inclusion of | Compensation | | Fiscal | Table Total for | Pension Value for | Cost for | Awards for | Equity Values for | Actually Paid to | | Year | John C. May(1) ($) | John C. May ($) | John C. May ($) | John C. May ($) | John C. May ($) | John C. May ($) | | 2025 | $27,925,424 | $(1,437,161) | $376,424 | $(18,205,372) | $6,290,986 | $14,950,301 | | 2024 | $27,801,672 | $(1,698,832) | $332,987 | $(17,491,573) | $22,066,894 | $31,011,148 | | 2023 | $26,722,519 | $(436,715) | $313,488 | $(18,180,007) | $20,575,839 | $28,995,124 | | 2022 | $20,300,151 | $— | $413,778 | $(11,234,238) | $29,151,389 | $38,631,080 | | 2021 | $19,912,826 | $(741,736) | $384,230 | $(9,290,187) | $37,734,954 | $48,000,087 |

  322. Pay versus Performance

    | 76 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  323. Pay versus Performance

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  324. Pay versus Performance

    | | Average | | | Exclusion of | | | | | Summary | Exclusion of | Inclusion of | Average Stock | Inclusion of | Average | | | Compensation | Average Change in | Average Pension | Awards and Option | Average Equity | Compensation | | Fiscal | Table Total for | Pension Value for | Service Cost for | Awards for | Values for | Actually Paid to | | Year | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | | 2025 | $7,547,034 | $(371,851) | $138,227 | $(4,331,540) | $3,082,041 | $6,063,911 | | 2024 | $7,574,559 | $(557,690) | $139,750 | $(4,077,272) | $5,076,876 | $8,156,223 | | 2023 | $7,763,381 | $(83,812) | $86,951 | $(4,788,595) | $5,525,211 | $8,503,136 | | 2022 | $5,243,700 | $— | $189,347 | $(1,924,893) | $5,355,688 | $8,863,842 | | 2021 | $6,571,828 | $(339,277) | $232,162 | $(2,121,595) | $10,707,251 | $15,050,369 |

  325. Pay versus Performance

    The amounts in the Inclusion of Equity Values in the tables above are derived from the amounts set forth in the following tables:

  326. Pay versus Performance

    | | Inclusion of | | | | | | | | | Year-End | | Inclusion of | | | | | | | Fair Value of | | Vesting Date | Inclusion of | Exclusion of Prior | | | | | Equity Awards | Inclusion of | Fair Value of | Change in Fair | Year-End Fair | | | | | Granted During | Change in | Equity Awards | Value of Equity | Value of Equity | Inclusion of | | | | the Year that | Fair Value from | Granted During | Awards Granted | Awards Granted | Dividends or Other | | | | Remained | Last Day of Prior | the Year that | in Prior Years | in Prior Years | Earnings Paid on | | | | Unvested at | Year to | Vested During | that Vested in | that Failed to Vest | Equity Awards Not | Total - Inclusion | | | Applicable | Applicable | the Applicable | the Applicable | in the Applicable | Otherwise | of Equity | | Fiscal | Year-End for | Year-End for | Year for | Year for | Year for | Included for | Values for | | Year | John C. May(1) ($) | John C. May ($) | John C. May ($) | John C. May ($) | John C. May ($) | John C. May ($) | John C. May ($) | | 2025 | $18,652,978 | $(9,221,199) | $— | $(3,140,793) | $— | $— | $6,290,986 | | 2024 | $20,759,326 | $1,623,711 | $— | $(316,143) | $— | $— | $22,066,894 | | 2023 | $21,044,235 | $(3,635,148) | $— | $3,166,752 | $— | $— | $20,575,839 | | 2022 | $19,417,988 | $8,756,697 | $— | $976,704 | $— | $— | $29,151,389 | | 2021 | $19,345,052 | $17,530,496 | $— | $859,406 | $— | $— | $37,734,954 |

  327. Pay versus Performance

    | | Inclusion of | | | | | | | | | Average Year-End | | Inclusion of | | Exclusion of | | | | | Fair Value of | | Average Vesting | Inclusion of | Average Prior | | | | | Equity Awards | Inclusion of | Date Fair Value | Average Change in | Year-End Fair | Inclusion of | | | | Granted During | Average Change in | of Equity Awards | Fair Value of | Value of Equity | Average Dividends | | | | the Year that | Fair Value from | Granted During | Equity Awards | Awards Granted | or Other Earnings | | | | Remained | Last Day of Prior | the Year that | Granted in Prior | in Prior Years | Paid on Equity | | | | Unvested at | Year to | Vested During | Years that Vested | that Failed to Vest | Awards Not | Total - Average | | | Applicable | Applicable | the Applicable | in the Applicable | in the Applicable | Otherwise | Inclusion of | | Fiscal | Year-End for | Year-End for | Year for | Year for | Year for | Included for | Equity Values for | | Year | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | Non-PEO NEOs ($) | | 2025 | $4,438,052 | $(1,104,972) | $— | $(251,039) | $— | $— | $3,082,041 | | 2024 | $4,838,984 | $292,648 | $— | $(54,756) | $— | $— | $5,076,876 | | 2023 | $5,552,601 | $(430,014) | $— | $402,624 | $— | $— | $5,525,211 | | 2022 | $3,292,511 | $1,744,493 | $— | $318,684 | $— | $— | $5,355,688 | | 2021 | $4,330,904 | $5,892,939 | $— | $483,408 | $— | $— | $10,707,251 |

  328. Pay versus Performance

    Please note that any columns included in the inclusion of Equity Values tables that contain a “—” did not have an amount in that category for that year.

  329. Pay versus Performance

    | (4) The Peer Group TSR set forth in this table utilizes the S&P 500 Industrials Index, which we also utilize in the stock performance graph required by Item 201(e) of Regulation S-K included in our Annual Report for the year ended November 2, 2025. The comparison assumes $100 was invested for the period starting November 1, 2020, through the end of the listed year in the Company and in the S&P 500 Industrials Index, respectively. Historical stock performance is not necessarily indicative of future stock performance. |

  330. Pay versus Performance

    | (5) Represents the amount of total net income, in millions, as reported in the Company’s audited U.S. GAAP financial statements for each applicable fiscal year, in accordance with rules adopted by the SEC. |

  331. Pay versus Performance

    | (6) We determined Operating Return on Operating Assets (OROA) to be the most important financial performance measure used to link Company performance to Compensation Actually Paid to our PEO and Non-PEO NEOs in fiscal 2025. OROA is a financial measure used in our Short-Term Incentive plan, and the calculation of, and adjustments to, this measure are described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section above. |

  332. Pay versus Performance

    | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT | 77 |

  333. Pay versus Performance

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  334. Pay versus performance comparative disclosure

    Pay versus performance comparative disclosure In accordance with Item 402(v)(5) of Regulation S-K, the Company is providing the following descriptions of the relationships between the information presented in the table above.

  335. Compensation Actually Paid, Company TSR, AND PEER GROUP TSR

    Compensation Actually Paid, Company TSR, AND PEER GROUP TSR The following chart sets forth the relationship between Compensation Actually Paid to our PEO, the average of Compensation Actually Paid to our Non-PEO NEOs, and the Company’s cumulative TSR as well as the cumulative TSR of the S&P 500 Industrials Index over the five most recently completed fiscal years:

  336. Compensation Actually Paid and Net Income

    Compensation Actually Paid and Net Income The following chart sets forth the relationship between Compensation Actually Paid to our PEO, the average of Compensation Actually Paid to our Non-PEO NEOs, and our Net Income during the five most recently completed fiscal years:

  337. Compensation Actually Paid and Company-Selected Measure

    Compensation Actually Paid and Company-Selected Measure The following chart sets forth the relationship between Compensation Actually Paid to our PEO, the average of Compensation Actually Paid to our Non-PEO NEOs, and our Company-Selected Measure during the five most recently completed fiscal years:

  338. Compensation Actually Paid and Company-Selected Measure

    | 78 | 2026 PROXY STATEMENT |

  339. Compensation Actually Paid and Company-Selected Measure

    | PROXY SUMMARY | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | OTHER MATTERS FOR VOTE | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | APPENDICES |

  340. What happens if a nominee for director declines or is unable to accept election?

    What happens if a nominee for director declines or is unable to accept election? If you vote by proxy and unforeseen circumstances make it necessary for the Board to substitute another person for a nominee, the designated proxy will vote your shares for that other person.