Your Vote is Important

Along with the attached Proxy Statement, we are also sending you our Annual Report, which includes our fiscal 2013 financial statements. Most of you can elect to view future proxy statements and annual reports over the Internet instead of receiving paper copies in the mail. Please refer to your proxy card and the section “Electronic Delivery of Proxy Statement and Annual Report” on page 3 of the Proxy Statement for further information.

For the Board of Directors,

Gregory R. Noe
Secretary

Moline, Illinois
January 13, 2014

Table of Contents

Why am I receiving this proxy statement?
The Deere & Company Board of Directors (the “Board”) has made available to you the Notice of Annual Meeting, this proxy statement (“Proxy Statement”), our annual report for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013 (“Annual Report”), a proxy card, and a voter instruction card (collectively, “Proxy Solicitation Materials”) either on the Internet or by mail in connection with the Deere & Company (“Deere,” the “Company,” “we,” or “us”) 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “meeting” or “Annual Meeting”). You are receiving this Proxy Statement because you owned shares of Deere common stock at the close of business on December 31, 2013, which entitles you to vote at the Annual Meeting. By use of a proxy, you can vote whether or not you attend the Annual Meeting. This Proxy Statement describes the matters on which we would like you to vote and provides information about those matters so that you can make an informed decision.

The Proxy Solicitation Materials are being mailed to, or can be accessed online by, stockholders on or about January 13, 2014.

What is Notice and Access and why did Deere elect to use it?
We make the Proxy Solicitation Materials available to stockholders electronically via the Internet under the Notice and Access regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).

Most of our stockholders have received a Notice of Electronic Availability (“Notice”) in lieu of receiving a full set of Proxy Solicitation Materials in the mail. The Notice includes information on how to access and review the Proxy Solicitation Materials, and how to vote, via the Internet. We believe this method of delivery will decrease costs, expedite distribution of Proxy Solicitation Materials to you, and reduce our impact on the environment.

Stockholders who received a Notice but would like to receive a printed copy of the Proxy Solicitation Materials in the mail should follow the instructions in the Notice for requesting such materials.

What will I be voting on?

How do I vote?
You can vote either in person at the Annual Meeting or by proxy without attending the meeting. We urge you to vote by proxy even if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting so that we will know as soon as possible whether enough votes will be present for us to hold the meeting. If you attend the meeting in person, you may vote at the meeting and your proxy will not be counted.

To vote your shares, follow the instructions in the Notice, voter instruction form, or enclosed proxy card. Telephone and Internet voting is available to all registered and most beneficial holders.

Stockholders voting by proxy may use one of the following three options:

If you hold your shares in “street name,” please refer to the information forwarded by your bank, broker, or other holder of record to see the options available to you.

The telephone and Internet voting facilities for stockholders will close at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on February 25, 2014. If you vote over the Internet, you may incur costs, such as telephone and Internet access charges, for which you will be responsible. The telephone and Internet voting procedures are designed to authenticate stockholders and to allow you to confirm that your instructions have been properly recorded.

If you hold shares through one of our employee savings plans, your vote must be received by the plan administrator by February 21, 2014, or the shares represented by the card will not be voted.

Can I change my proxy vote?
Yes. At any time before your shares are voted by proxy, you may change your vote by:

If you hold your shares in “street name,” please refer to the information forwarded by your bank, broker, or other holder of record for procedures on revoking or changing your proxy.

How many votes do I have?
You will have one vote for each share of Deere common stock that you owned at the close of business on December 31, 2013.

How many shares are entitled to vote?
There are 371,367,178 shares of Deere common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2013 and entitled to vote at the meeting. Each share is entitled to one vote. There is no cumulative voting.

How many votes must be present to hold the meeting?
Under our Bylaws, a majority of the votes that can be cast must be present in person or by proxy to hold the Annual Meeting. Abstentions and shares represented by “broker non-votes,” as described below, will be counted as present and entitled to vote for purposes of determining a quorum.

What if I vote “abstain”?
If you vote to “abstain,” your shares will be counted as present for purposes of determining whether enough votes are present to hold the Annual Meeting. A vote to “abstain” on the election of directors will have no effect on the outcome. A vote to “abstain” on the other proposals will have the effect of a vote against the proposal.

What if I don’t return my proxy card and don’t attend the Annual Meeting?
If you are a holder of record (that is, your shares are registered in your own name with our transfer agent) and you do not vote your shares, your shares will not be voted.

If you hold your shares in “street name” and you do not give your bank, broker, or other holder of record specific voting instructions for your shares, your record holder can vote your shares on the ratification of the independent registered public accounting firm. However, your record holder cannot vote your shares without your specific instructions on the election of directors or the advisory vote on executive compensation.

For the aforementioned proposals on which a broker cannot vote without your instruction, if you do not provide voting instructions to your broker, the votes will be considered “broker non-votes” and will not be counted in determining the outcome of the vote. “Broker non-votes” will be counted as present for purposes of determining whether enough votes are present to hold the Annual Meeting.

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

Is my vote confidential?
Yes. Your voting records will not be disclosed to us except:

The tabulator, the proxy solicitation agent, and the inspectors of voting must comply with confidentiality guidelines that prohibit disclosure of votes to Deere. The tabulator of the votes and at least one of the inspectors of voting will be independent of Deere and our officers and directors.

If you are a holder of record or an employee savings plan participant and you write comments on your proxy card, your comments will be provided to us but your vote will remain confidential.

Will I receive a copy of Deere’s Annual Report?
We have either mailed the Annual Report to you with this Proxy Statement or, if you have previously elected to view our annual reports over the Internet, provided in the Notice the web address for you to access the Annual Report online. The Annual Report includes our audited financial statements and other financial information for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013, and we urge you to read it carefully.

How can I receive a copy of Deere’s 10-K?
You can obtain, free of charge, a copy of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013 (the “Form 10-K”), by:

       Deere & Company
       Stockholder Relations
       One John Deere Place
       Moline, Illinois 61265-8098

You can also obtain a copy of our Form 10-K and other periodic filings with the SEC from the SEC’s EDGAR database at www.sec.gov.

Electronic Delivery of Proxy Statement and Annual Report

Can I access Deere’s proxy materials and Annual Report electronically?
Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Stockholder Meeting to be Held on February 26, 2014:

The Proxy Statement and Annual Report to security holders are available on our Internet site at www.deere.com/stock.

Most stockholders can elect to view future proxy statements and annual reports over the Internet instead of receiving copies in the mail.

You can choose this option and save us the cost of producing and mailing these documents by:

If you choose to receive future proxy statements and annual reports over the Internet, you will receive an e-mail message next year containing the Internet address to access future proxy statements and annual reports. This e-mail will include instructions for voting over the Internet. If you have not elected electronic delivery, you will receive a notice indicating that proxy solicitation materials are available at www.proxyvote.com.

Information not Incorporated into this Proxy Statement

The information on our website (www.deere.com) is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this Proxy Statement nor, by reference or otherwise, except to the extent we specifically incorporate it by reference, incorporated into any other filings we make with the SEC.

Householding Information

What is “householding?”
Either a single copy of the Proxy Solicitation Materials or the Notice, as applicable, will be sent to households at which two or more stockholders reside if they appear to be members of the same family unless one of the stockholders at that address notifies us that they wish to receive individual copies. This procedure reduces our printing costs and fees. Householding will not affect dividend check mailings in any way.

A number of brokerage firms have instituted householding. If you hold your shares in “street name,” please contact your bank, broker, or other holder of record to request information about householding.

If Proxy Solicitation Materials were delivered to an address that you share with another stockholder, we will promptly deliver a separate copy if you make a written or verbal request to Deere & Company Stockholder Relations, One John Deere Place, Moline, Illinois 61265-8098, (309) 765-4539.

How do I revoke my consent to the householding program?
You must revoke your consent to the householding program by contacting Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”), either by calling toll free at (800) 542-1061 or by writing to Broadridge, Householding Department, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, New York 11717. You will be removed from the householding program within 30 days of Broadridge’s receipt of the revocation of your consent.

Samuel R. Allen, Crandall C. Bowles, Vance D. Coffman, Charles O. Holliday, Jr., Dipak C. Jain, Clayton M. Jones, Joachim Milberg, Richard B. Myers, Gregory R. Page, Thomas H. Patrick, and Sherry M. Smith are to be elected for terms expiring at the annual meeting in 2015. As the result of an amendment to the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation that was approved by our stockholders on February 24, 2010, all members of the Board are elected annually.

The Corporate Governance Committee of the Board recommended these individuals to the Board and the Board nominated them.

Gregory R. Page was elected to the Board effective June 1, 2013 for a term expiring at the 2014 annual meeting.

Pursuant to Deere’s mandatory retirement age policy for directors as described in the “Stockholder Proposals and Nominations” section of this Proxy Statement, Aulana L. Peters will be leaving the Board effective with the 2014 annual meeting. The size of the Board will be reduced accordingly.

Each nominee’s age as of December 31, 2013, present position, directorships at public companies and registered investment companies during the past five or more years, positions with Deere, current directorships in other companies, and key qualifications, experiences, and attributes qualifying them to serve on the Company’s Board appear below.

SAMUEL R. ALLEN (60)
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Deere

Key Qualifications, Experiences, and Attributes:
In addition to his professional background and prior Deere Board experience, the following qualifications led the Board to conclude that Mr. Allen should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors: his leadership experience as an officer of Deere since 2001, the breadth of his management experiences within and knowledge of each of Deere’s major global operations, and his subject matter knowledge in the areas of engineering, manufacturing, and industrial management.

CRANDALL C. BOWLES (66)
Chairman of The Springs Company

Key Qualifications, Experiences, and Attributes:
In addition to her professional background and prior Deere Board experience, the following qualifications led the Board to conclude that Ms. Bowles should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors: her leadership qualities developed from her service as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Springs Industries, Inc., the breadth of her experiences in auditing, risk management, and other areas of oversight while serving as a member of the boards of directors of other global corporations, and her subject matter knowledge in the areas of economics and sales and marketing of consumer products.

VANCE D. COFFMAN (69)
Retired Chairman of Lockheed Martin Corporation

Key Qualifications, Experiences, and Attributes:
In addition to his professional background and prior Deere Board experience, the following qualifications led the Board to conclude that Mr. Coffman should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors: his leadership qualities developed from his service as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation, the breadth of his experiences in auditing, corporate governance, and other areas of oversight while serving as a member of the boards of directors of other global corporations, and his subject matter knowledge in the areas of engineering, manufacturing, and finance.

CHARLES O. HOLLIDAY, JR. (65)
Chairman of the National Academy of Engineering

Key Qualifications, Experiences, and Attributes:
In addition to his professional background and prior Deere Board experience, the following qualifications led the Board to conclude that Mr. Holliday should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors: his leadership qualities developed from his experiences while serving as Chairman of the National Academy of Engineering, Chairman of Bank of America Corporation, and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of DuPont, the breadth of his experiences in auditing, compensation, and other areas of oversight while serving as a member of the boards of directors of other global corporations, and his subject matter knowledge in the areas of engineering, finance, business development, and corporate responsibility.

DIPAK C. JAIN (56)
Chaired Professor of Marketing, INSEAD

Key Qualifications, Experiences, and Attributes:
In addition to his professional background and prior Deere Board experience, the following qualifications led the Board to conclude that Mr. Jain should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors: his leadership qualities developed from his experiences while serving as Dean of INSEAD, Dean of the Kellogg School of Management, and as a foreign affairs adviser for the Prime Minister of Thailand, the breadth of his experiences in compensation, corporate governance, and other areas of oversight while serving as a member of the boards of directors of other global corporations, and his subject matter knowledge in the areas of marketing, global product diffusion, and new product forecasting and development.

CLAYTON M. JONES (64)
Chairman of Rockwell Collins, Inc.

Key Qualifications, Experiences, and Attributes:
In addition to his professional background and prior Deere Board experience, the following qualifications led the Board to conclude that Mr. Jones should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors: his leadership qualities developed from his service as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Rockwell Collins, Inc., the breadth of his experiences in finance, compensation, and other areas of oversight while serving as a member of the boards of directors of other global corporations, and his subject matter knowledge in the areas of government affairs and marketing.

JOACHIM MILBERG (70)
Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) AG

Key Qualifications, Experiences, and Attributes:
In addition to his professional background and prior Deere Board experience, the following qualifications led the Board to conclude that Mr. Milberg should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors: his leadership qualities developed from his experiences while serving as Chief Executive Officer of BMW AG and Chairman of BMW AG’s Board of Management and Supervisory Board, the breadth of his global experiences from his service as a member of the boards of directors of non-U.S.-based corporations, and his subject matter knowledge in the areas of engineering, production automation, and robotic technology.

RICHARD B. MYERS (71)
Retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Retired General of the United States Air Force

Key Qualifications, Experiences, and Attributes:
In addition to his professional background and prior Deere Board experience, the following qualifications led the Board to conclude that Mr. Myers should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors: his leadership qualities developed from his service as the 15th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the breadth of his experiences in compliance, finance, and other areas of oversight while serving as a member of the boards of directors of other global corporations, and his subject matter knowledge in the areas of crisis management, national security, and international geopolitics.

GREGORY R. PAGE (62)
Executive Chairman of Cargill, Incorporated

Key Qualifications, Experiences, and Attributes:
In addition to his professional background and prior Deere Board experience, the following qualifications led the Board to conclude that Mr. Page should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors: his leadership qualities developed from his experiences while serving as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cargill, Incorporated, the breadth of his experiences in auditing, corporate governance, and other areas of oversight while serving as a member of the boards of directors of other global corporations, and his subject matter knowledge in the areas of commodities, agriculture, operating processes, finance, and economics.

THOMAS H. PATRICK (70)
Chairman of New Vernon Capital, LLC

Key Qualifications, Experiences, and Attributes:
In addition to his professional background and prior Deere Board experience, the following qualifications led the Board to conclude that Mr. Patrick should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors: his leadership qualities developed from his service as an executive officer of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the breadth of his experiences in auditing, corporate governance, and other areas of oversight while serving as a member of the boards of directors of other global corporations, and his subject matter knowledge in the areas of finance, economics, and asset management.

SHERRY M. SMITH (52)
Former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Supervalu Inc.

Key Qualifications, Experiences, and Attributes:
In addition to her professional background and prior Deere Board experience, the following qualifications led the Board to conclude that Ms. Smith should serve on Deere’s Board of Directors: her leadership qualities developed from her experience while serving as a senior executive and as Chief Financial Officer of Supervalu Inc., the breadth of her experiences in auditing, finance, accounting, compensation, strategic planning, and other areas of oversight, her family farming background, and her subject matter knowledge in the areas of finance, accounting, and food and supply chain management.

Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires that Deere seek an advisory vote from its stockholders to approve the compensation of the executives named in the Summary Compensation Table of this Proxy Statement (the “Named Executive Officers” or “NEOs”) as disclosed in the Compensation Discussion & Analysis (“CD&A”) and tabular and narrative executive compensation disclosures of this Proxy Statement. The Company’s practice, which was approved by its stockholders at the 2011 annual meeting, is to conduct this non-binding vote on an annual basis.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Pay for Performance
Deere’s compensation philosophy is to pay for performance, support Deere’s business strategies, and offer competitive compensation arrangements. Our compensation programs consist of elements designed to complement each other and reward achievement of short-term and long-term objectives. The metrics used for our incentive programs are associated with operating performance or based upon a function of the Company’s stock price with linkage to revenue growth and total shareholder return. See the “Deere & Company Pay for Performance” graph in the Executive Summary of the CD&A, which highlights our success in aligning executive compensation with the Company’s financial performance.

Program Design
In the CD&A, we have provided stockholders with a description of our compensation programs, including the philosophy and strategy underpinning the programs, the individual elements of the compensation programs, and how our compensation plans are administered. Our compensation approach, which we call our Total Rewards Strategy, is supported by the following principles, among others, as fully described in the section “Total Rewards Strategy” in the CD&A:

Best Practices in Executive Compensation

The Board believes that the executive compensation as disclosed in the CD&A, tabular disclosures, and other narrative executive compensation disclosures in this Proxy Statement is consistent with our compensation philosophy and aligns with the pay practices of our peer group.

FOR THE REASONS STATED, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE “FOR” THE FOLLOWING NON-BINDING RESOLUTION:
“RESOLVED, that the stockholders approve the compensation of the NEOs as disclosed in this Proxy Statement pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the SEC, including the CD&A, tabular disclosures, and other narrative executive compensation disclosures.”

Effect of Proposal
The say-on-pay resolution is non-binding. The approval or disapproval of this proposal by stockholders will not require the Board or the Compensation Committee to take any action regarding the Company’s executive compensation practices. The final decision on the compensation and benefits of our NEOs and on whether, and if so, how, to address stockholder disapproval remains with the Board and the Compensation Committee.

Fees Paid to the Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board believes that the Compensation Committee is in the best position to consider the extensive information and factors necessary to make independent, objective, and competitive compensation recommendations and decisions that are in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

The Board values the opinions of the Company’s stockholders as expressed through their votes and other communications. Although the resolution is non-binding, the Board and the Compensation Committee will carefully consider the outcome of the advisory vote and those opinions when making future compensation decisions.

Item 3 - Ratification of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Audit Review Committee has approved the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP to serve as the independent registered public accounting firm to audit Deere’s financial statements and internal controls over financial reporting for fiscal 2014. The Audit Review Committee and the Board are requesting that stockholders ratify this appointment as a means of soliciting stockholders’ opinions and as a matter of good corporate practice.

The affirmative vote of a majority of the shares present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote at the meeting is required to ratify the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP. If the stockholders do not ratify the selection, the Audit Review Committee will consider any information submitted by the stockholders in connection with the selection of the independent registered public accounting firm for the next fiscal year. Even if the selection is ratified, the Audit Review Committee, in its discretion, may direct the appointment of a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if the Audit Review Committee believes such a change would be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

We expect that a representative of Deloitte & Touche LLP will be in attendance at the Annual Meeting. This representative will have an opportunity to make a statement and will be available to respond to appropriate questions.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE “FOR” THE RATIFICATION OF THE INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM.

For the years ended October 31, 2013 and 2012, professional services were performed by Deloitte & Touche LLP, the member firms of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Limited, and their respective affiliates (collectively, “Deloitte & Touche”).

Audit Fees
The aggregate fees billed include amounts for the audit of Deere’s annual financial statements and reviews of the financial statements included in Deere’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, including services related thereto such as comfort letters, statutory audits, attest services, consents, and accounting consultations. Audit fees for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2013 and 2012 were $16.3 million and $15.3 million, respectively.

Audit-Related Fees
During the last two fiscal years, Deloitte & Touche has provided Deere with assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit of our financial statements. The aggregate fees billed for such audit-related services for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2013 and 2012 were $1.9 million and $0.7 million, respectively. These services included audits of financial statements of employee benefit plans, various attestation services, and other consultations.

Tax Fees
There were no fees billed for tax services for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2013 and October 31, 2012.

All Other Fees
There were no fees billed for services not included above for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2013 and October 31, 2012.

Pre-approval of Services by the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Audit Review Committee has adopted a policy for pre-approval of audit and permitted non-audit services provided by Deere’s independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Review Committee will consider annually and, if appropriate, approve the provision of audit services by its independent registered public accounting firm and consider and, if appropriate, pre-approve the provision of certain defined audit and non-audit services. The Audit Review Committee will also consider on a case-by-case basis and, if appropriate, approve specific services that are not otherwise pre-approved.

Any proposed engagement that does not fit within the definition of a pre-approved service may be presented to the Audit Review Committee for consideration at its next regular meeting or, if earlier consideration is required, to the Audit Review Committee or one or more of its members between regular meetings. The member or members to whom authority is delegated to approve such services between regular meetings shall report any specific approvals of services to the Audit Review Committee at its next regular meeting.

The Audit Review Committee will regularly review summary reports detailing all services being provided to Deere by its independent registered public accounting firm.

During fiscal 2013, all services by Deere’s independent registered public accounting firm were pre-approved by the Audit Review Committee in accordance with this policy.

Other Matters

We do not know of any other matters that will be considered at the Annual Meeting. If, however, any other appropriate business should properly come before the meeting, the Board will have discretionary authority to vote according to its best judgment.

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

The following table shows the number of shares of Deere common stock beneficially owned as of December 31, 2013 (unless otherwise indicated) by:

A beneficial owner of stock is a person who has sole or shared voting power, meaning the power to control voting decisions, or sole or shared investment power, meaning the power to cause the sale or other disposition of the stock. A person is also considered the beneficial owner of shares to which that person has the right to acquire beneficial ownership (within the meaning of the preceding sentence) within 60 days. For this reason, the following table includes exercisable stock options, shares underlying restricted stock units (“RSUs”) that are scheduled to settle within 60 days of December 31, 2013, and options and RSUs that would become exercisable or be settled within 60 days of December 31, 2013 at the discretion of an individual identified in the table (for example, upon retirement).

All individuals listed in the table have sole voting and investment power over the shares unless otherwise noted. As of December 31, 2013, Deere had no preferred stock issued or outstanding.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

(1) The ownership information for Cascade Investment, L.L.C. (“Cascade”) is based on information supplied by Cascade in a statement on Schedule 13D filed with the SEC. All shares of common stock held by Cascade may be deemed to be beneficially owned by William H. Gates III as the sole member of Cascade. Cascade has sole voting power and sole dispositive power over 30,008,573 shares owned.

(2) The ownership information for BlackRock Inc. (“BlackRock”) is based on information supplied by BlackRock in a statement on Schedule 13G filed with the SEC for the period ended December 31, 2012. BlackRock holds the shares in its capacity as a registered investment advisor on behalf of numerous investment advisory clients, none of which is known to own more than five percent of Deere’s shares. BlackRock has sole voting power and sole dispositive power over 25,354,708 shares owned.

(3) The table includes restricted shares and RSUs awarded to directors under the Deere & Company Nonemployee Director Stock Ownership Plan (see footnote (2) to the Fiscal 2013 Director Compensation Table). Restricted shares and RSUs may not be transferred prior to retirement as a director. RSUs are payable only in Deere common stock following retirement and have no voting rights until they are settled in shares of stock. In addition, directors own the following number of deferred stock units, which are payable solely in cash under the terms of the Nonemployee Director Deferred Compensation Plan:

(4) See the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2013 Year-End table for additional information regarding equity ownership for NEOs as of October 31, 2013.

(5) The number of shares shown for all directors and executive officers as a group includes 134,072 shares owned jointly with family members over which the directors and executive officers share voting and investment power.

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires our directors, certain of our officers, and persons who own more than 10% of a registered class of our equity securities to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the SEC. These individuals are required by SEC regulations to furnish Deere with copies of all such Section 16(a) forms.

We help our directors and officers to prepare and file the required reports. We have established procedures where the directors and officers (and others on their behalf) provide us with the relevant information regarding their transactions in Deere shares. Based on this information, we prepare and file the required ownership reports on behalf of the directors and officers. We have reviewed the reports we prepared and filed. In addition, our directors and officers have made written statements to us regarding their Deere stock ownership and reports. Based solely upon a review of these statements and reports, we believe that during 2013 all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to our insiders were complied with.

Corporate Governance

Corporate Governance Policies
In recognition of the importance of corporate governance as a component of providing stockholder value, our Board of Directors has adopted Corporate Governance Policies for the Company. Our Corporate Governance Policies are periodically reviewed and revised as appropriate by the Board to ensure that the policies reflect the Board’s corporate governance objectives. The independence standards included in these policies meet or exceed the independence requirements of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”). Our Corporate Governance Policies can be found on our website at www.deere.com/corpgov.

Director Independence
As part of our Corporate Governance Policies, the Board has adopted categorical standards to assist the Board in evaluating the independence of each director. The categorical standards are intended to assist the Board in determining whether or not certain relationships between our directors and Deere or its affiliates (either directly or indirectly as a partner, stockholder, officer, director, trustee, or employee of an organization that has a relationship with Deere) are “material relationships” for purposes of the NYSE independence standards. The categorical standards establish thresholds at which such relationships are deemed not to be material. The categorical standards are attached as Appendix A to this Proxy Statement and are included as part of the Corporate Governance Policies referenced above. A copy may also be obtained upon request to the Deere & Company

Stockholder Relations Department. In addition, each director’s independence is evaluated under our Related Person Transactions Approval Policy, as discussed in the “Review and Approval of Related Persons Transactions” section below.

In November 2013, we reviewed the independence of each director, applying the independence standards set forth in our Corporate Governance Policies. The review considered relationships and transactions between each director (and his or her immediate family and affiliates) and each of the following: Deere, Deere’s management, and Deere’s independent registered public accounting firm.

Based on this review, at the December 2013 Board meeting, the Board affirmatively determined that the following directors have no material relationships with Deere and its affiliates and are independent as defined in our Corporate Governance Policies and the listing standards of the NYSE: Ms. Bowles, Mr. Coffman, Mr. Holliday, Mr. Jain, Mr. Jones, Mr. Milberg, Mr. Myers, Mr. Page, Mr. Patrick, Ms. Peters, and Ms. Smith. Mr. Allen is not considered an independent director because of his employment relationship with Deere.

Review and Approval of Related Person Transactions
The Board has adopted a Related Person Transactions Approval Policy (the “Related Person Policy”). Under the Related Person Policy, our Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for reviewing, approving, and ratifying all related person transactions.

The following are considered to be related persons under the Related Person Policy:

A related person transaction is a transaction, relationship, or arrangement between a related person and Deere where:

Each year, our directors and executive officers complete annual questionnaires designed to elicit information about potential related person transactions. Deere’s directors and officers must promptly advise our Corporate Secretary if there are any changes to the information they previously provided.

After consultation with our General Counsel, management, and outside counsel, as appropriate, our Corporate Secretary determines whether the transaction is reasonably likely to be a related person transaction. Transactions deemed reasonably likely to constitute related person transactions are submitted to the Corporate Governance Committee for consideration at its next meeting. If action is required prior to the next meeting, the transaction is submitted to the Chairperson of the Corporate Governance Committee (the “Chairperson”) and the Chairperson’s determination is then reported to the Corporate Governance Committee at its next meeting.

When evaluating potential related person transactions, the Corporate Governance Committee or the Chairperson, as applicable, considers all reasonably available relevant facts and circumstances and approves only those related person transactions determined in good faith to be in compliance with, or not inconsistent with, our Code of Ethics, Code of Business Conduct, and the best interests of our stockholders.

Patrick E. Mack, brother of Michael J. Mack, Jr., our President, Worldwide Construction & Forestry Operations, is an employee in the Company’s Financial Services division. During fiscal 2013, Patrick E. Mack received $660,252 in direct cash compensation, along with stock options valued at $149,600 at the time of grant. Patrick E. Mack’s compensation is consistent with that of other employees at his grade level. Pursuant to our Corporate Governance Committee charter, this transaction was approved by the Corporate Governance Committee after determining that it is not inconsistent with our Code of Ethics or Code of Business Conduct.

Identification and Evaluation of Director Nominees
The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for screening candidates and recommending director nominees to the full Board, which nominates the slate of directors for election at each annual meeting of stockholders and also elects directors to fill vacancies or newly-created seats on the Board. The Corporate Governance Committee considers candidates as recommended by stockholders, directors, officers, and third party search firms. Recommendations from stockholders are considered by the Corporate Governance Committee in accordance with the procedures described under the section of this Proxy Statement entitled “Stockholder Proposals and Nominations.” The Corporate Governance Committee reviews all candidates in the same manner, regardless of the source of the recommendation.

Our Corporate Governance Policies, which are periodically reviewed by the Board, provide the general criteria and framework for assessing director candidates. In accordance with our Corporate Governance Policies, when screening candidates for nomination to the Board, the Corporate Governance Committee considers skills, experience, international versus domestic background, diversity, age, and legal and regulatory requirements in the context of an assessment of the perceived needs of the Board. The Corporate Governance Committee seeks to ensure that the Board is composed of members whose particular skills, qualifications, experiences, and attributes, when taken together, allow the Board to satisfy its oversight responsibilities effectively.

At a minimum, the Board assesses the diversity of its members and nominees on an annual basis during its performance evaluation by considering, among other factors, diversity in expertise, experience, background, ethnicity, and gender.

Board Oversight of Risk Management
The Board believes that strong and effective internal controls and risk management processes are essential elements in achieving long-term stockholder value. The Board, directly and through its committees, is responsible for overseeing risks potentially affecting the Company.

The Audit Review Committee oversees financial, operational, strategic, and hazard-related risks by regularly reviewing reports and presentations given by management, including our Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Vice President, Internal Audit, as well as other operational Company personnel. In addition, the Audit Review Committee regularly meets with our external auditors to discuss and assess potential risks. The Audit Review Committee regularly reviews our risk management practices and risk-related policies (for example, the Company’s Code of Business Conduct, information security policies, risk management and insurance portfolio, and legal and regulatory reviews) and evaluates potential risks related to internal control over financial reporting.

The Compensation Committee oversees potential risks related to the design and administration of our compensation plans, policies, and programs, including our performance-based compensation programs, to promote appropriate incentives which do not encourage unnecessary and excessive risk-taking by our executive officers or other employees.

The Corporate Governance Committee oversees potential risks related to our governance practices by, among other tasks, reviewing succession plans and performance evaluations of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, monitoring legal developments and trends regarding corporate governance practices, and evaluating potential related person transactions.

The Pension Plan Oversight Committee oversees potential risks related to funding our U.S. qualified pension plans (other than the defined contribution savings and investment plans) and monitoring compliance with applicable laws and Company policies and objectives.

The full Board oversees the Company’s risk management procedures and regularly receives and evaluates reports and presentations from the Chairs of the Audit Review, Compensation, Corporate Governance, and Pension Plan Oversight Committees on risk-related matters falling within each respective committee’s oversight responsibilities.

Board Leadership Structure
The Chairman of the Board also serves as our Chief Executive Officer. The Board believes that combining the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer roles is the most appropriate structure for the Company at this time because the Board believes that: (1) this structure has a longstanding history of serving our stockholders well, through many economic cycles, business challenges, and the succession of multiple leaders; (2) its governance processes, as reflected in the Corporate Governance Policies and Board committee charters, preserve Board independence by ensuring independent discussion among directors and independent evaluation of, and communication with, members of senior management, and (3) the enhanced role of the independent Presiding Director strengthens the Company’s governance structure such that separation of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer roles is unnecessary at this time.

Presiding Director
Charles O. Holliday, Jr., an independent director, currently serves as our Presiding Director. Mr. Holliday is currently serving his fifth term as our Presiding Director.

The Presiding Director is elected by a majority of the independent directors upon a recommendation from the Corporate Governance Committee. The Presiding Director is appointed for a one-year term beginning upon election and expiring upon the selection of a successor Presiding Director.

The Board has determined that the Presiding Director should have the following duties and responsibilities:

The Board believes that the role of the Presiding Director furthers the Company’s continuing commitment to strong corporate governance and Board independence.

Political Contributions
In order to promote transparency and good corporate citizenship, we have since 2012 provided voluntary disclosure relating to the political contribution activities of the Company and its political action committee. This information is publicly available at www.deere.com/politicalcontributions.

Communication with the Board
If you wish to communicate with the Board you may send correspondence to: Corporate Secretary, Deere & Company, One John Deere Place, Moline, Illinois 61265-8098.

The Corporate Secretary will submit your correspondence to the Board or the appropriate committee, as applicable.

You may communicate directly with the Presiding Director of the Board by sending correspondence to: Presiding Director, Board of Directors, Deere & Company, Department A, One John Deere Place, Moline, Illinois 61265-8098.

Committees

The Board met five times during fiscal 2013. Directors are expected to attend Board meetings, meetings of committees on which they serve, and stockholder meetings. Directors are expected to spend the time needed and meet as frequently as necessary to properly discharge their responsibilities. During fiscal 2013, all directors attended 75% or more of the meetings of the Board and committees on which they served. All directors attended the Annual Meeting of Stockholders in February 2013 except for Mr. Page, whose election to the Board occurred subsequent to such meeting.

Each Board meeting normally begins or ends with a session between the CEO and the independent directors. This provides a platform for discussions outside the presence of the non-Board management attendees, as well as an opportunity for the independent directors to go into executive session (without the CEO) if requested by any director. The independent directors may meet in executive session, without the CEO, at any time, and such non-management executive sessions are scheduled (and in

practice typically occur) at each regularly scheduled Board meeting. The Presiding Director presides over these executive sessions.

The Board has delegated some of its authority to the following five committees of the Board: the Executive Committee, the Audit Review Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee, and the Pension Plan Oversight Committee. Each such committee has adopted a charter that complies with current NYSE rules relating to corporate governance matters. Copies of the committee charters, as well as our Code of Ethics and Code of Business Conduct, are available at www.deere.com/corpgov. A copy of these charters and policies also may be obtained upon request to the Deere & Company Stockholder Relations Department.

The Executive Committee
The Executive Committee may act on behalf of the Board if a matter requires Board action between meetings of the full Board. The Executive Committee’s authority concerning certain significant matters is limited by law and our Bylaws. No meetings of the Executive Committee were required during fiscal 2013.

The Audit Review Committee
The Board has determined that under current NYSE listing standards all members of the Audit Review Committee are independent and financially literate. The Board has also determined that Mr. Holliday, Mr. Page, Mr. Patrick, Ms. Peters, and Ms. Smith are “audit committee financial experts” as defined by the SEC and that each has accounting or related financial management expertise as required by NYSE listing standards. The Audit Review Committee reports to the Board on its activities and findings. The Audit Review Committee’s primary responsibilities include:

The Compensation Committee
The Board has determined that under current NYSE listing standards all members of the Compensation Committee are independent. The Compensation Committee currently retains Pearl Meyer & Partners (“Pearl Meyer”) as its compensation consultant. Pearl Meyer also provides independent input for the Corporate Governance Committee’s decision-making with respect

to director compensation. The Compensation Committee reports to the Board on its activities. The Compensation Committee’s primary responsibilities include:

The Corporate Governance Committee
The Board has determined that under current NYSE listing standards all members of the Corporate Governance Committee are independent. The Corporate Governance Committee reports to the Board on its activities. The Corporate Governance Committee’s primary responsibilities include:

The Pension Plan Oversight Committee
The Board has determined that under current NYSE listing standards all members of the Pension Plan Oversight Committee are independent. The Pension Plan Oversight Committee oversees our pension plans, establishes corporate policy with respect to the pension plans, and reviews the Company’s funding policies. The Pension Plan Oversight Committee also has authority to make substantive amendments and modifications to the pension plans. The Pension Plan Oversight Committee reports to the Board on its activities.

The following table shows the current membership of each committee and the number of meetings held by each committee during fiscal 2013:

Compensation of Directors

We pay nonemployee directors an annual retainer along with additional fees to committee chairpersons and the Presiding Director as described below. We do not pay any other committee retainers or meeting fees. In addition, nonemployee directors are awarded RSUs after each annual meeting during their service as directors. A person who becomes a nonemployee director between annual meetings, or who serves a partial term, receives a prorated retainer and a prorated RSU award. We also reimburse directors for expenses related to meeting attendance. Directors who are employees receive no additional compensation for serving on the Board or its committees. Compensation for nonemployee directors is reviewed annually by the Corporate Governance Committee. At its December 2013 meeting, the Board approved an increase of

the annual retainer for nonemployee directors to $120,000, as recommended by the Corporate Governance Committee, which became effective January 1, 2014. The following chart describes amounts we pay and the value of awards we grant to nonemployee directors:

Under our Nonemployee Director Deferred Compensation Plan, directors may choose to defer some or all of their annual retainers until their retirement as a director. A director may 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.

Prior to fiscal 2008, nonemployee directors received the equity award in the form of restricted stock. Beginning in fiscal 2008, directors receive the equity award in the form of RSUs. In fiscal 2012, the Board adopted stock ownership guidelines requiring each nonemployee director to own Company common stock equivalent in value to at least three times the director’s annual cash retainer. This ownership level must be achieved within five years of the date the director joins the Board. Restricted stock, RSUs, and any common stock held personally by the nonemployee director are included in determining whether the applicable ownership requirement has been achieved. Other than Ms. Smith, who was first elected to the Board in December 2011, and Mr. Page, who was first elected to the Board in June 2013, each director has achieved stockholdings in excess of the applicable multiple as of the date of this Proxy Statement. Additionally, we require nonemployee directors to hold all equity awards until the occurrence of one of the following triggering events: retirement from the Board, permanent and total disability, death, or a change in control of Deere along with a qualifying termination of the director. The directors are prohibited from selling, gifting, or otherwise disposing of their equity awards prior to a triggering event. While the restrictions are in effect, the nonemployee directors may vote the restricted shares (but not shares underlying RSUs) and receive dividends on the restricted shares and dividend equivalents on the RSUs.

In fiscal 2013, we provided the following compensation to nonemployee directors:

(1) All fees earned in fiscal 2013 for services as a director, including Committee Chairperson and Presiding Director fees, whether paid in cash or deferred under the Nonemployee Director Deferred Compensation Plan, are included in this column.

(2) Represents the grant date fair value of RSUs for financial statement reporting purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and does not correspond to the actual value that will be realized by the nonemployee directors. All grants are fully expensed in the fiscal year granted based on the grant price (the average of the high and low price for Deere common stock on the grant date). For fiscal 2013, the grant date was March 6, 2013, and the grant price was $90.01. The nonemployee director grant date is seven calendar days after the Annual Meeting. The assumptions made in valuing the RSUs reported in this column are discussed in Note 24, “Stock Option and Restricted Stock Awards,” of our consolidated financial statements filed with the SEC on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013. The following table lists the cumulative restricted shares and RSUs held by the nonemployee directors as of October 31, 2013:

(3) Directors are eligible to participate in the Nonemployee Director Deferred Compensation Plan. Under this plan, participants may defer part or all of their annual cash compensation. For these deferrals, two investment choices are available:

Amounts included in this column represent the above-market earnings on any amounts deferred under the Nonemployee Director Deferred Compensation Plan. Above-market earnings represent the difference between the interest rate used to calculate earnings under the applicable investment choice and 120% of the applicable federal long-term rate.

(4) Mr. Page was elected to the Board effective June 1, 2013. His compensation amounts reflect a partial year award for the retainer fees for June 2013 through September 2013 and a pro-rated RSU award for June 2013 through February 2014.

To the Board of Directors:

The Audit Review Committee consists of the following members of the Board of Directors:

Charles O. Holliday, Jr. (Chair), Dipak C. Jain, Joachim Milberg, Gregory R. Page, Thomas H. Patrick, Aulana L. Peters, and Sherry M. Smith. Each of the members is independent as defined under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The Audit Review Committee is responsible for assisting the Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities pertaining to the accounting, auditing, and financial reporting processes of Deere. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining Deere’s internal control over financial reporting and for preparing financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The Audit Review Committee is directly responsible for the appointment, oversight, compensation, and retention of Deloitte & Touche LLP, the independent registered public accounting firm for Deere. Deloitte & Touche LLP is responsible for performing an independent audit of Deere’s annual consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, and expressing opinions on (i) the conformity of Deere’s financial statements with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; and (ii) Deere’s internal control over financial reporting.

All members of the Audit Review Committee are financially literate under the applicable NYSE rules, and the following members of the Audit Review Committee – Mr. Holliday, Mr. Page, Mr. Patrick, Ms. Peters, and Ms. Smith – are “audit committee financial experts” within the meaning of that term as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Regulation S-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Audit Review Committee has a written charter describing its responsibilities, which has been approved by the Board of Directors and is available on Deere’s website at www.deere.com/corpgov. The Audit Review Committee’s responsibility is one of oversight. Members of the Audit Review Committee rely on the information provided and the representations made to them by: management, which has primary responsibility for establishing and maintaining appropriate internal control over financial reporting and for Deere’s financial statements and reports; and by the independent registered public accounting firm, which is responsible for performing an audit in accordance with Standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and expressing opinions on (i) the conformity of Deere’s financial statements with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States; and (ii) Deere’s internal control over financial reporting.

In this context, we have reviewed and discussed with management Deere’s audited financial statements as of and for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013.

We have discussed with Deloitte & Touche LLP, the independent registered public accounting firm for Deere, the matters required to be discussed by PCAOB Interim Auditing Standard AU Section 380, Communications with Audit Committees.

We have received and reviewed the written disclosures and the letter from Deloitte & Touche LLP required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding the independent registered public accounting firm’s communications with the Audit Review Committee concerning independence, and have discussed with them their independence. We have concluded that Deloitte & Touche LLP’s provision of audit and non-audit services to Deere is compatible with their independence.

Based on the reviews and discussions referred to above, and exercising our business judgment, we recommend to the Board of Directors that the financial statements referred to above be included in Deere’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013 for filing with the SEC. We have selected Deloitte & Touche LLP as Deere & Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2014, and have approved submitting the selection of the independent registered public accounting firm for ratification by the stockholders.

Audit Review Committee

Charles O. Holliday, Jr. (Chair)
Dipak C. Jain
Joachim Milberg
Gregory R. Page
Thomas H. Patrick
Aulana L. Peters
Sherry M. Smith

including our NEOs, to substantially contribute individually and collaboratively to the Company’s long-term, sustainable growth. The following chart shows the direct and indirect compensation components of our Total Rewards Strategy:

The pay elements are designed to complement each other and award upper quartile compensation for sustained upper quartile Company performance. The underlying incentive programs are based on financial metrics that are aligned with the Company’s

business strategy and stockholders’ interests, take into account the cyclical nature of Deere’s businesses, and support collaborative teamwork across our integrated global enterprise.

As our NEOs assume greater responsibility, our pay for performance approach provides that: (1) a larger portion of their total compensation should be “at-risk” in the form of short-term, mid-term, and long-term incentive awards; and (2) a larger proportion of their incentive awards should be in the form of long-

term awards in order to drive sustainable growth of stockholder value. The following chart illustrates the allocation of all fiscal 2013 Total Direct Compensation components at target for each NEO. This chart highlights the Company’s emphasis on long-term and at-risk compensation.

Consultant Review of Pay for Performance Relative to Peer Group
In the course of reviewing our overall executive compensation program, the Compensation Committee’s consultant, Pearl Meyer & Partners (“Pearl Meyer”), reviewed the relationship between total realizable compensation and our performance for the three fiscal years ended October 31, 2012. This approach was selected because this is the most recent time period coinciding with our fiscal year-end for which corresponding compensation information is available for our peer companies. This review was conducted to understand the degree of alignment between total compensation delivered to our NEOs during the period and our performance relative to our peer group as identified in the “Benchmarking” section below. For purposes of this review, “company performance” is defined as total shareholder return. “Total realizable compensation” for Deere NEOs is defined as the sum of the following components:

1. Actual base salaries paid over the three-year period;

2. Actual short-term incentive awards paid over the three-year period;

3. The Black-Scholes value as of October 31, 2012 of any stock options granted over the three-year period;

4. The current value of restricted stock units granted over the three-year period;

5. The pro-rated number of performance stock units based on actual performance as of October 31, 2012 for the fiscal 2011-2013 and fiscal 2012-2014 performance cycles; and

6. The value of actual MTI payouts made over the three-year period.

For peer companies, realizable pay includes cash-based long-term incentive plan and performance share plan payouts for performance cycles fully contained within the 3-year period with award values multiplied by a factor that reflects grant frequency and long-term incentive vehicle mix.

Pearl Meyer’s analysis, as shown in the chart below, reveals that we achieved total shareholder return above the 75th percentile of our peer group while total realizable compensation for our CEO and other NEOs was at or below the 75th percentile of the peer group.

Pearl Meyer also noted that two of Deere’s most highly-paid executive officers for the three fiscal years ended October 31, 2012, who have since retired and are not reported in the Executive Compensation Tables of this year’s Proxy Statement, are included in this analysis. Had the analysis been performed with respect to Deere’s current non-CEO NEOs, the competitive positioning of relative total realizable compensation would have been below median due to the short tenures of several of these executive officers.

Pearl Meyer will conduct the pay for performance analysis with respect to the three fiscal years ended October 31, 2013 once corresponding information is available for our peer companies (expected to be spring 2014). It is anticipated that this analysis will indicate that pay and performance have remained aligned, albeit at a lower point within the alignment corridor shown in the chart above, reflecting Deere’s more recent share price performance.

2013 Compensation Overview
At Deere, we remain committed to our longstanding compensation philosophy, which incorporates the principles of paying for performance, supporting business strategies, and paying competitively. The Compensation Committee believes this philosophy continues to drive our NEOs and salaried employees to produce sustainable, positive results for the Company and our stockholders.

Compensation Objectives
We aspire to distinctively serve our customers – those linked to the land – through a great business. To achieve this aspiration, our business strategy includes:

Execution of this strategy is expected to create a sustainable business that rewards our customers, employees, and stockholders. Our Total Rewards Strategy is designed to motivate our NEOs and salaried employees to execute our business strategy and strive for higher Company performance while maintaining our core values of quality, innovation, integrity, and commitment.

Total Rewards Strategy (“TRS”)
TRS includes Total Direct Compensation (base salary, short-term, mid-term, and long-term incentive compensation) and Total Indirect Compensation (other compensation and benefits). The award ranges and values for each of the incentive compensation components of TRS are tied to our performance through association with operating metrics or as a function of our stock price. We have chosen financial metrics that align compensation with our business strategy and our stockholders’ interests. This alignment is further accomplished by keeping our metrics simple, transparent, and consistently communicated from year to year. SVA, for example, has been published in the annual report every year since 2002 in the section following the Chairman’s message.

Although TRS applies to most salaried employees, this Proxy Statement focuses on its applicability to our NEOs. TRS is supported by the following principles: (1) attract, retain, and motivate high-caliber executives; (2) with greater responsibility, place a larger portion of total compensation “at-risk” with a larger portion tied to long-term incentives; (3) provide the appropriate level of reward for performance (below median total compensation for substandard Company performance; median total compensation for median levels of Company performance; and upper quartile total compensation for sustained upper quartile Company performance); (4) recognize the cyclical nature of our equipment businesses and the need to manage value throughout the business cycle; (5) provide opportunity for NEOs to be long-term stockholders of the Company; (6) structure compensation programs to meet the tax deductibility criteria in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) where practicable; and (7) structure compensation programs to be regarded positively by our stockholders and employees.

Compensation Methodology and Process
Independent Review and Approval of Executive Compensation
The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”), all of the members of which are independent under current NYSE listing standards, is responsible for reviewing and approving corporate goals and objectives related to compensation for the majority of salaried employees. The Committee evaluates the NEOs’ performances in relation to established goals and ultimately approves the compensation for the NEOs (except for the CEO) after evaluating their total compensation. See the “Committees” section of this Proxy Statement for a detailed listing of Committee responsibilities and members.

The Committee does not delegate any substantive responsibilities related to the compensation of NEOs and exercises its independent judgment when approving executive compensation. No member of the Committee is a former or current officer of Deere or any of its subsidiaries.

The Committee periodically reviews compensation delivery to ensure its alignment with our business strategy, the Company’s performance, and the interests of our employees and stockholders. In addition, the Committee periodically reviews market practices for all elements of executive compensation and approves necessary adjustments to remain competitive.

The Corporate Governance Committee of the Board directs an annual evaluation process of the CEO. Generally, at the Board meeting in August of each year, the full Board (in executive session without the CEO present) evaluates the CEO’s performance. The Committee considers the Board’s evaluation when providing recommendations to the Board for the CEO’s compensation. The Committee’s recommendations for the CEO’s compensation are presented to and approved by the independent members of the Board. The CEO does not play a role in and is not present during discussions regarding his own compensation.

The CEO plays a significant role in setting the compensation for the other NEOs. The CEO presents an evaluation of each NEO’s individual performance. The CEO also provides recommendations

for changes to the NEOs’ base salaries and LTI awards. Since the STI and MTI awards are calculated using predetermined factors, the CEO does not provide recommendations for changes to the other NEOs’ STI and MTI awards. The Committee has the discretion to accept, reject, or modify the CEO’s recommendations. The other NEOs are not present during these discussions.

As part of its process for making compensation decisions, the Committee reviews the results of the Company’s most recent annual advisory “say-on-pay” vote. A substantial majority (approximately 92%) of our stockholders who voted on the “say-on-pay” proposal in our fiscal 2012 proxy statement approved our executive compensation as described in the CD&A and tabular and narrative disclosures. The Committee took account of this strong level of stockholder support in determining to apply the same effective principles and philosophy in structuring our executive compensation program for fiscal 2013.

The Role of the Compensation Committee’s Consultant
The Committee has retained Pearl Meyer as its compensation consultant. Pearl Meyer reviewed our executive compensation program design and assessed our compensation approach relative to our performance and the market.

Pearl Meyer attends Committee meetings, reviews compensation data with the Committee, and participates in general discussions regarding executive compensation issues. While the Committee considers input from Pearl Meyer, ultimately the Committee’s decisions reflect many factors and considerations. Management works with Pearl Meyer at the Committee’s direction to develop materials and analysis essential to the Committee’s compensation evaluations and determinations. Such materials include competitive market assessments and summaries of current legal and regulatory developments.

Pearl Meyer periodically meets independently with the Chairman of the Committee to discuss compensation matters. In addition, Pearl Meyer regularly participates in executive sessions with the Committee (without any of the Company’s personnel or executives present) to discuss compensation matters. Pearl Meyer does not

provide other significant services to Deere and has no other direct or indirect business relationships 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 does not raise any conflicts of interest. Additionally, based on its analysis of the factors identified in the Committee’s charter as being relevant to compensation consultant independence, the Committee has concluded that Pearl Meyer is independent of the Company’s management.

Benchmarking
To ensure that total compensation for NEOs aligns with the market, we benchmarked our compensation and performance against the companies in our peer group. The companies in the peer group that we used in our fiscal 2013 benchmarking process, listed in the chart below, are similar to Deere in sales volume, products, services, market capitalization, and/or global presence.

Compensation paid by our peer group is representative of the compensation we believe is required to attract, retain, and motivate executive talent. The Committee, in consultation with Pearl Meyer, periodically reviews the peer group list to confirm that it continues to be an appropriate benchmark for NEO compensation. During fiscal 2013, the Committee determined that, due to their significantly lower revenue levels, Ingersoll-Rand Plc, Parker-Hannifin Corp, and Textron Inc. should no longer be included as part of our peer group after fiscal 2013 for purposes of executive compensation benchmarking, while The Boeing Company and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company should be added to the group.

Total Direct Compensation Elements
The following information describes each direct compensation element, including discussion of performance metrics where applicable.

Base Salary
In determining salary levels for each of our NEOs, the Committee takes into consideration factors such as fulfillment of job responsibilities, the financial and operational performance of the activities directed by each NEO, experience, time in position, internal equity, and potential. The Committee also considers each NEO’s current salary as compared to the salary range and the median salary practices of our peer group.

In fiscal 2013, after considering the aforementioned factors, the Board approved a base salary increase of 6% for the CEO and the Committee approved increases ranging from 2-15% for the other NEOs. The resulting salary levels align with the market median for similar positions except for Mr. Kalathur, whose base salary is below the market median due to his short time in the CFO position.

Short-Term Incentive (“STI”)
The following factors are used to calculate the amount of the STI award paid to our NEOs:

The STI plan is periodically approved by our stockholders and was last approved at the annual meeting in February 2010. Individual STI awards cannot exceed the maximum as established in the plan.

Performance Metrics for STI
There are two metrics used in the calculation of STI: one for the Equipment Operations (consisting of our worldwide Agriculture and Turf Operations and Construction and Forestry Operations) and one for our Financial Services segment.

OROA is the performance metric used by the Equipment Operations. Deere is primarily a manufacturing company with high investment in fixed assets, such as buildings and machinery, and significant expenses with longer term payoffs, such as research and development. OROA was selected as the STI performance metric because the Committee believes it effectively measures the efficient use of the Equipment Operations’ assets.

Targeted OROA performance for each Equipment Operations business segment varies based on the segment’s sales volume. The actual sales volume is measured in relationship to mid-volume sales. Mid-volume sales is determined at the beginning of the fiscal year using historical sales volumes, industry growth rates, and market share data, among other considerations, and represents the midpoint of a business cycle.

The preceding graph represents how Deere’s operating leverage functions in a given business. For Deere, operating leverage means:

By adjusting OROA performance goals as sales volumes change, Deere believes the level of difficulty in attaining targeted performance will be comparable for a range of sales volumes and capacity utilization levels. Using OROA aligns employee decisions with our strategic approach to sound investment of capital and asset utilization. This model encourages our management team to make necessary structural changes, such as those related to capacity, margin enhancements, and asset turnover for a given volume level.

At the beginning of fiscal 2013, the Committee approved the following OROA goals at different sales volume levels for the Equipment Operations:

These OROA goals have not changed since fiscal 2007. Minimum, target, and maximum OROA goals are interpolated for sales volumes between low and mid-volume and between mid-volume and high volume.

ROE is the performance metric for Financial Services. Financial Services experiences different cash flow risk characteristics and operates with significantly different debt-to-equity leverage than the Equipment Operations. ROE goals for Financial Services are adjusted for the actual mix of business subsidized by the Equipment Operations as well as for the business that is not subsidized. ROE goals are higher for non-subsidized business. The Committee approved the following ROE goals at the beginning of fiscal 2013:

These ROE goals have not changed since fiscal 2011. See Appendix B, “Deere & Company Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures,” for additional information regarding the calculation of OROA and ROE for fiscal 2013.

For fiscal 2013, the various business results were weighted to calculate STI as follows (which weighting has not changed since fiscal 2011):

Approval of STI Rates
At the beginning of the fiscal year, after review and consideration of Deere’s peer group data for target cash bonuses, the Committee approves target STI rates as a percentage of the NEO’s base salary. A target STI award is designed to provide median annual cash compensation compared with our peer group when combined with base salary and median overall compensation compared with our

peer group when combined with base salary, a target MTI award and a base-level LTI award. In December 2012, the Committee approved STI rates for fiscal 2013 as follows:

Fiscal 2013 Performance Results for STI
The chart below details:

To further explain this chart and the fiscal 2013 OROA goals, actual sales volumes for the combined Equipment Operations were above mid-volume levels for fiscal 2013. Therefore, the combined Equipment Operations needed to achieve 22% OROA to earn maximum payout. Since an OROA of 31.8% was achieved, a maximum payout for that component of STI was earned.

The amount of the STI award paid to a NEO is calculated as follows:

Base salary for the fiscal year
x Target STI rate
x Actual performance as a percent of target (up to a maximum of 200%)
= STI award amount

STI awards paid to NEOs are detailed in the Fiscal 2013 Summary Compensation Table under footnote (4). The Committee did not exercise its authority to decrease or eliminate the STI award for fiscal 2013.

The STI plan and the results for fiscal 2013 described above are also used to determine the STI award paid to most salaried employees worldwide. For fiscal 2013, STI awards paid to the NEOs represented about 1% of the total amount of STI awards paid to all eligible employees.

Long-Term Compensation
Long-term compensation includes a combination of MTI and LTI. MTI is paid in cash and is considered part of long-term compensation because multiple fiscal years are included in the performance period. For fiscal 2013, the LTI award consisted of RSUs, PSUs, and stock options.

Mid-Term Incentive (“MTI”)
The following factors are used to calculate the amount of the MTI award paid to our NEOs:

The MTI plan is periodically approved by our stockholders and was last approved at the annual meeting in February 2013. Individual MTI awards cannot exceed the maximum as established in the plan.

Performance Metrics for MTI
In 2003, the Committee established SVA as the MTI performance metric. SVA measures Deere’s success in delivering sustained growth in economic profitability. SVA was selected as the MTI performance metric because the Committee believes that Deere should: (a) earn, at a minimum, its weighted average cost of capital each year; (b) ensure that investments in capital and research and development earn their cost of capital; and (c) ensure that acquisitions do not dissipate stockholder value. We believe that sustained growth can be accomplished through a combination of revenue growth and high returns on invested capital. Since MTI is based on enterprise-wide SVA, MTI encourages teamwork across

all units of our business. See Appendix B, “Deere & Company Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures,” for an explanation regarding the calculation of SVA.

The Committee has approved multi-year performance periods to emphasize and reward consistent, sustained operating performance. The Committee has conducted annual reviews of the target and maximum SVA goals since fiscal 2006. The maximum SVA goal matches enterprise SVA goals set by the business for each year in the performance period. The target SVA is set at half of the maximum SVA goal. The chart below details the target and maximum SVA goals for each of the performance periods that include fiscal 2013.

Inherent in the MTI plan is a lagging, multi-year impact of SVA. Whether positive or negative, SVA results for a given year become part of the MTI award calculation for that year and subsequent years. Negative SVA in a given year is part of the calculation for that year and subsequent years and can offset positive SVA earned in a prior or future year. Thus, MTI plan payouts in a strong-performance year, following a number of weak-performance years, will be lower than the financial results that the strong-performance year alone would justify. The opposite is also true: MTI plan payouts made in a weak-performance year, following several strong-performance years, will be higher than the financial results that the weak-performance year alone would justify.

Beginning with the performance period ended in fiscal 2013, the Committee changed the length of a MTI performance period from four to three years. The Committee believes a three-year performance period lessens the impact of the lag effect described in the previous paragraph and better matches the timing of SVA accumulation with MTI payout.

Approval of MTI Rates
After review and consideration of compensation data for our peer group, the Committee approves target MTI rates as a percentage of the median salary of the NEO’s salary grade. A target MTI award is designed to provide median compensation compared with our peer group in combination with base salary, a target STI award, and a base-level LTI award. In November 2010, the Committee approved the following target MTI rates for the performance period ended October 31, 2013. When maximum SVA goals are met or exceeded, 200% of target rates are paid.

* A minimum MTI award ($1,100 for the CEO and $400 for the other NEOs) will not be paid unless accumulated SVA exceeds $1 million for the performance period.

Fiscal 2013 Performance Results for MTI
Deere’s accumulated SVA, calculated in accordance with the MTI performance metrics as described in Appendix B, is reported in the following table for the three-year performance period ended October 31, 2013:

For the three-year performance period ended October 31, 2013, the accumulated SVA exceeded the maximum payout goal of $4.93 billion, resulting in a maximum MTI award. MTI awards paid to NEOs are detailed in the Fiscal 2013 Summary Compensation Table under footnote (4). The Committee did not exercise its authority to decrease or eliminate the MTI award for fiscal 2013. For fiscal 2013, MTI awards paid to the NEOs were equal to approximately 4% of the MTI payout to all eligible employees.

In the ten years preceding the implementation of MTI, fiscal years 1994 through 2003, accumulated SVA, as reported, was negative $1.4 billion as compared to accumulated positive SVA of $16.3 billion in the ten years since 2003. The Committee believes that Deere’s adoption of the SVA model is an important factor driving the Company’s performance.

Long-Term Incentive (“LTI”)
The purpose of LTI is to reward the NEOs for the creation of sustained stockholder value, encourage ownership of Deere stock, foster teamwork, and retain and motivate high-caliber executives while aligning their interests with those of our stockholders. Historically, LTI awards consisted of annual grants of restricted stock or RSUs, along with market-priced stock options under the John Deere Omnibus Equity and Incentive Plan (“Omnibus Plan”). In fiscal 2011, the Committee introduced PSUs as an element of the annual award mix in order to strengthen the incentive features of LTI awards and create stronger alignment between ultimate payouts and Company performance. The Omnibus Plan is periodically approved by our stockholders and was last approved at the annual meeting in February 2010.

The Committee established LTI grants to the NEOs based on the following criteria: level of responsibility, individual performance, current market practice, peer group data, and the number of shares available under the Omnibus Plan. Awards granted in previous years are not a factor in determining the current year’s award. Potential accumulated wealth is not viewed as relevant in arriving at the current year’s LTI award. The following table summarizes the mix, performance measurements, and general terms for each form of equity awarded to the NEOs for fiscal year 2013:

* Based on the Company’s compound annual growth rate

Approval of LTI Award Values
At the beginning of the fiscal year, after review and consideration of peer group data on target long-term incentives, the Committee approves a dollar value for a base-level LTI award and the mix of awards (options, RSUs, and PSUs) to be delivered. A base-level LTI award is designed to provide median compensation compared with our peer group when combined with base salary and target STI and MTI awards. The Committee determines LTI awards at the first Committee meeting at the beginning of the fiscal year. The Committee has the discretion to increase or decrease the base-level award to distinguish an individual’s level of performance, to deliver a particular LTI value, or to reflect other adjustments as the Committee deems necessary. For fiscal 2013, adjustments to base-level award values ranging up to 15% were approved in recognition of the individual performance of the NEOs. Following these adjustments, awards were approved for the NEOs as follows:

* Amounts differ from the value of equity awards shown in the Fiscal Year 2013 Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards table because those tables reflect the probable outcome of the performance metrics for PSUs. The amounts shown here include PSUs valued at the grant price on the date of grant, reflecting the value the Committee considered when granting the LTI awards for fiscal 2013.

See the Fiscal 2013 Grants of Plan-Based Awards table and footnotes for more information on LTI awards delivered as well as the terms of the awards.

For fiscal 2013, the number of RSUs and PSUs granted to the NEOs represented 48% of all RSUs and PSUs, respectively, granted to eligible salaried employees. The number of stock options granted to the NEOs represented 9% of all stock options granted to eligible salaried employees in fiscal 2013. These proportions are consistent with our philosophy that as NEOs assume greater responsibility, a larger portion of their incentive compensation should be focused on long-term awards.

PSUs Granted in Fiscal Year 2013
For PSUs granted in fiscal 2013, the actual number of shares to be issued upon conversion of the PSUs will be based on Deere’s revenue growth and TSR for the three-year performance period ending in 2015. The Company’s performance will be measured relative to the companies in the S&P Industrial Sector as of the end of the performance period.

The number of PSUs that vest and convert to shares can range from 0% to 200% of the number of PSUs awarded depending on the Company’s relative performance during the performance period as illustrated in the following table:

* Interim points are interpolated

2011-2013 PSU Program (Payable in Fiscal 2014)
The performance period for PSUs granted in fiscal year 2011 ended on October 31, 2013. The final number of shares earned was based on Deere’s revenue growth and TSR relative to the S&P Industrial Sector over the three-year performance period. The final payout determination was made by the Committee in December 2013 following a review of the relative performances of the Company and the S&P Industrial Sector. Revenue growth and TSR were comparable to the 79th and 4th percentiles, respectively, of the S&P Industrial Sector. This resulted in an overall payout of 100% of target.

The number of units that are or would be payable based on actual achievement relative to the S&P Industrial Sector and year-end values for PSUs granted in fiscal years 2011 through 2013 are included in the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2013 Year-End table.

LTI Grant Practices
For more than 20 years, the Committee has authorized the annual LTI awards for all eligible employees on a single date each year. The grant date is seven calendar days after the first Board meeting of the fiscal year. This timing allows for stock price stabilization after the release of year-end financial results and Board meeting announcements. The grant price for LTI awards is the average of the high and low common stock price on the grant date as reported on the NYSE. This grant price is also used to determine the number of PSUs, RSUs, and stock options to be awarded.

Stock Ownership Requirements
Stock ownership requirements apply to NEOs to ensure the retention of stock acquired through our equity incentive plan. The required levels of ownership are five times base salary for the CEO and 3.5 times base salary for the other NEOs, to be achieved within five years of the date the NEO is first appointed as CEO or as an executive officer, as applicable. Only vested RSUs and any common stock held personally by the NEOs are included in determining whether the applicable ownership requirement is achieved. Once the appropriate ownership level is achieved by the NEO, the number of shares held at that time becomes the fixed stock ownership requirement for the NEO for three years, even if base salary

increases or stock price decreases. Other than Mr. Kalathur, who was first appointed Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer on September 1, 2012, each NEO has achieved stockholdings in excess of the applicable multiple as of the date of this Proxy Statement.

Our Insider Trading Policy precludes all directors and employees, including our NEOs, and their related persons from engaging in short sales of the Company’s stock or trading in instruments designed to hedge against price declines by the Company’s stock. Our Insider Trading Policy also prohibits our directors and officers (including NEOs) from holding Company stock in margin accounts or pledging Company stock as collateral for loans or other obligations.

Summary of Total Direct Compensation
The Committee believes each pay element included in Total Direct Compensation is consistent with our compensation philosophy. The Committee reviews Total Direct Compensation in the aggregate for the NEOs (excluding the CEO) as well as for each NEO individually and compares this compensation to the market position data of our peer group. This market position data takes into account the level of responsibility (including the level of sales volume) for each NEO’s respective operations. We have a practice of rotating individuals among the executive officer positions. As described above, a primary part of our strategy is aligned high-performance teamwork. A substantial portion of the evaluation of individual performance is a careful analysis of each NEO’s collaboration and contribution to the success of a high-performing team. Thus, while the market data for each position is a factor in reviewing Total Direct Compensation, the Committee also considers individual fulfillment of duties, teamwork, development, time in position, experience, and internal equity among NEOs (other than the CEO). The Committee recognizes individual performance through adjustments to base salary and LTI.

Total Direct Compensation for the CEO is higher than other NEOs due to the CEO’s breadth of executive and operating responsibilities for the entire global enterprise. The Committee does not target CEO compensation as a certain multiple of the compensation of the other NEOs. The relationship between the CEO’s compensation and that of the other NEOs is influenced by our organizational structure, which does not include a chief operating officer. For Mr. Allen, Total Direct Compensation as compared to the other NEOs’ Total Direct Compensation is generally comparable to that of our peer group.

Limitations on Deductibility of Compensation
Section 162(m) of the IRC generally limits to $1 million the U.S. federal income tax deductibility of compensation paid in one year to any individual employee. Performance-based compensation

is not subject to the limits on deductibility of Section 162(m), provided such compensation meets certain requirements, including stockholder approval of material terms of compensation. The Committee strives to provide NEOs with compensation programs that will preserve the tax deductibility of compensation paid by Deere, to the extent reasonably practicable and consistent with Deere’s other compensation objectives. The Committee believes, however, that stockholder interests are best served by not restricting the Committee’s discretion and flexibility in structuring compensation programs, even though such programs may result in certain non-deductible compensation expenses.

Recoupment of Previously Paid Incentive Compensation
In November 2007, the Committee adopted the Executive Incentive Compensation Recoupment Policy (“Recoupment Policy”). The Recoupment Policy authorizes the Committee to determine whether to require recoupment of incentive compensation paid to or deferred by certain executives (including the NEOs) if certain conditions are met. The Committee may require recoupment if the executive engaged in misconduct that:

and, in either case, the Committee determines that the executive’s incentive compensation would have been less if the misconduct had not occurred.

Total Indirect Compensation Elements
The following sections describe each Total Indirect Compensation element:

Perquisites
We offer our NEOs various perquisites that the Committee believes are reasonable in order to remain competitive. These perquisites constitute a small percentage of the NEOs’ total compensation. The Committee conducts an annual review of the perquisites offered to the NEOs. For more information on the perquisites provided and to whom they apply, see footnote (6) to the Fiscal 2013 Summary Compensation Table. In addition to the items listed in the aforementioned footnote, NEOs, as well as other selected employees, are also provided indoor parking and access to Deere-sponsored skyboxes at local venues for personal use when not occupied for business purposes, both at no incremental cost to the Company. All security services provided by the Company are reimbursed by the NEOs.

In August 2006, the Board voted to require the CEO to use the Company’s aircraft for all business and personal travel, believing that the ability to travel safely and efficiently provides substantial

benefits that justify the cost. Deere’s geographic location in the Midwest, outside of a major metropolitan area, makes personal and business travel challenging. Traveling by company aircraft for business and personal reasons allows the CEO to conduct business confidentially while in transit. Since the CEO travels extensively, inefficient travel is costly to the Company. Personal use of company aircraft by other NEOs is minimal. Any personal travel on Deere aircraft by the other NEOs, individually or accompanied by their family members, must be approved by the CEO. The Committee has limited the CEO’s annual personal usage of company aircraft to approximately 100 hours.

Retirement Benefits
Each of our NEOs is currently covered by the same defined benefit pension plans, which include the same plan terms, as most qualifying U.S. salaried employees. We also maintain two additional defined benefit pension plans in which NEOs may participate, the Senior Supplementary Pension Benefit Plan (the “Supplementary Plan”) and the John Deere Supplemental Benefit Plan (the “Supplemental Plan”).

The defined benefit pension plans have compensation limits imposed by the IRC. The Supplementary Plan provides participants with the same benefit they would have received without the limits. This avoids the relative disadvantage that participants would experience compared to other qualified plan participants. The Supplemental Plan is designed to reward career service at Deere above a specified grade level by utilizing a formula that takes into account only years of service above that grade level. We believe that the defined benefit plans serve as important retention tools, provide a level of competitive income upon retirement, and reward long-term employment and service as an officer of Deere. For additional information, see the Fiscal 2013 Pension Benefits Table, along with the accompanying narrative and footnotes.

We also maintain a tax-qualified defined contribution plan, the John Deere Savings and Investment Plan (“SIP”), which is available to the majority of U.S. employees, including the NEOs. We make matching contributions on up to six percent of an employee’s pay to participant SIP accounts. The STI results for the previous fiscal year (see the “Performance Metrics for STI” section above) are used to determine the level of actual Company match for the following calendar year. The level of Company match also depends on an employee’s participation in the Traditional Option versus the Contemporary Option, as explained in the narrative preceding the Fiscal 2013 Pension Benefits Table. The following table illustrates the Company’s match for calendar 2013, which is reported for our NEOs under the “All Other Compensation” column of the Fiscal 2013 Summary Compensation Table:

Deferred Compensation Benefits
We also maintain certain deferred compensation plans that provide the NEOs with longer-term savings opportunities on a tax-efficient basis. All deferred compensation benefits are designed to attract, retain, and motivate employees. Such deferred compensation benefits are commonly offered by companies with whom we compete for talent. See the “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation” section below for additional details.

Potential Payments upon Change in Control and Other Potential Post-Employment Payments
Potential Payments upon Change in Control
In August 2009, the Committee approved a Change in Control Severance Program (the “CIC Program”) to replace the change in control agreements in place since 2000. The CIC Program covers certain executive officers, including each of the NEOs, and is intended to facilitate continuity of management in the event of a change in control. The Committee believes that the CIC Program serves the following purposes:

For more information, see “Fiscal 2013 Potential Payments upon Change in Control” and the corresponding tables.

Other Potential Post Employment Payments
The Company’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 section below entitled “Fiscal 2013 Potential Payments upon Termination of Employment Other than Following a Change in Control.”

Compensation Committee Report

Risk Assessment of Compensation Policies and Practices
During fiscal 2013, management conducted a comprehensive risk assessment of the Company’s compensation policies and practices. The risk assessment process included the following:

(1) Assembled a Compensation Risk Assessment Team (“Management Team”) comprised of management personnel representing relevant areas of oversight;

(2) Completed an inventory of the Company’s compensation programs globally for both executive and non-executive employees; and

(3) Established a detailed risk assessment questionnaire and applied it to the compensation programs which, due to their size, potential payout, and/or structure, could potentially have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The inquiries in the risk assessment questionnaire focused on the following issues: (a) pay-for-performance comparison against the Company’s peer group; (b) balance of compensation components; (c) program design and pay leverage; (d) program governance; and (e) mitigating factors that offset program risks.

After review, the Management Team concluded that the Company’s compensation policies and practices do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Committee, along with its independent compensation consultant, Pearl Meyer, reviewed the risk assessment and concurred with the Management Team’s conclusion. Specifically, the Committee believes the following key factors support the Management Team’s conclusion: (i) the performance metrics for determining STI (OROA and ROE) and MTI (SVA) are based on worldwide, publicly reported metrics with only minor adjustments and, therefore, are not easily susceptible to manipulation; (ii) the metrics for STI are capped at a maximum level of OROA and ROE performance, thereby reducing the risk that the executives might be motivated to attain excessively high “stretch” goals in order to maximize short-term payouts; and (iii) the metrics for MTI are capped at a maximum level of SVA performance, thereby reducing the risk that the executives might be motivated to attain excessively high “stretch” goals in order to maximize mid-term payouts. In addition, Deere maintains stock ownership requirements that are designed to incentivize our NEOs to focus on the Company’s long-term, sustainable growth. Finally, Deere has a Recoupment Policy (described above) designed to prevent misconduct relating to financial reporting.

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has reviewed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K and discussed it with Deere’s management. Based on the Compensation Committee’s review and discussions with management, the Compensation Committee recommends to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in Deere’s Proxy Statement.

Vance D. Coffman, Chair
Crandall C. Bowles
Clayton M. Jones
Richard B. Myers

In this section, we provide tabular and narrative information regarding the compensation of our CEO, CFO, and the next three most highly compensated executive officers for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013. Because fiscal 2012 was the first year

Messrs. Kalathur and Gilles met the criteria for inclusion in this section, only data for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 is included for these executives.

(1) Includes amounts deferred by the NEO under the John Deere Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan. Salary amounts deferred in fiscal 2013 are included in the first column of the Fiscal 2013 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table corresponding with “Deferred Plan.”

(2) Represents the aggregate grant date fair value of PSUs and RSUs computed in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation. The values in this column exclude the effect of estimated forfeitures. Assumptions made in the calculation of these amounts are included in Note 24, “Stock Option and Restricted Stock Awards,” of our consolidated financial statements filed with the SEC on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013. For PSUs, the value at the grant date is based upon the probable outcome of the performance metrics over the three-year performance period. If the highest level of payout was achieved, the value of the award as of the grant date for PSUs would be as follows: $8,112,000 (Allen); $1,515,400 (Kalathur); $1,449,700 (Field); $1,515,400 (Gilles); and $1,383,500 (Mack). RSUs granted in fiscal year 2013 will vest three years after the grant date, at which time they may be settled in Deere common stock. RSUs granted in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 must be held until five years after the grant

date. Refer to the Fiscal 2013 Grants of Plan-Based Awards table and footnote (7) thereto for a detailed description of the grant date fair value of stock awards.

(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 are described in Note 24, “Stock Option and Restricted Stock Awards,” of our consolidated financial statements filed with the SEC on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013. Refer to the Fiscal 2013 Grants of Plan-Based Awards table and footnote (7) thereto for a detailed description of the grant date fair value of option awards.

(4) Non-equity incentive plan compensation includes cash awards under the STI and MTI plans. Cash awards earned under the STI and MTI plans for the performance period ended in fiscal 2013 were paid to NEOs on December 15, 2013 unless deferred under the Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan. Deferred STI and MTI amounts are included in the first column of the Fiscal 2013 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table corresponding with “Deferred Plan.”

(a) Based on actual performance, as discussed in the CD&A under “Fiscal 2013 Performance Results for STI,” the NEOs earned an STI award equal to 190% of the target opportunity.

(b) Based on actual performance, as discussed in the CD&A under “Fiscal 2013 Performance Results for MTI,” the NEOs earned an MTI award equal to 200% of the target opportunity.