Document

Please wait

Exhibit 1.01

MOOG INC.

Conflict Minerals Report

For the reporting period from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020

This Conflict Minerals Report of Moog Inc. (“Moog”) has been prepared pursuant to Rule 13p-1 and Form SD promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for the reporting period referenced above.

In August 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") adopted the Rule 13p-1 pursuant to the mandate of Section 1502 of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This rule requires all U.S. publicly traded companies that manufacture, or contract to manufacture, products to annually disclose whether columbite-tantalite (coltan), cassiterite, gold, wolframite, or their derivatives of tantalum, tin and tungsten (“conflict minerals”) are necessary to the functionality or production of these products and whether the conflict minerals originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia and Angola (the “covered countries”). These products, which may include conflict minerals, are referred to in this report collectively as the "covered products" and listed below under the heading "Covered Products." As a result, Moog designed due diligence procedures in order to gather and report this required information.

This Report has not been subject to an independent private sector audit as allowed under Rule 13p-1, which provides a temporary accommodation for the first two reporting periods following November 13, 2012 and extended for the current reporting period based on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling dated August 18, 2015.

Executive Summary

Moog performed a Reasonable Country of Origin Inquiry (RCOI) on suppliers believed to provide Moog with materials or components containing 3TGs necessary to the manufacturing of Moog’s products. Moog’s suppliers identified 336 valid smelters and refineries (“smelters”). Of these 336 smelters, Moog identified 43 as sourcing (or there was a reason to believe they may be sourcing) from the DRC or adjoining countries (collectively called the ‘Covered Countries’). Moog’s due diligence review indicated that 33 of these smelters have been audited and recognized as conflict free by the Responsible Minerals Assurance Process (“RMAP”). The remaining 10 smelters sourcing from the Covered Countries were subject to Moog’s risk mitigation process according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chain of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (OECD Due Diligence Guidance). Moog has a complex supply chain that does not source conflict minerals directly from mines, smelters or refiners. In turn, Moog relies on supplier information regarding sourcing of materials, and works with these suppliers to identify, where possible, the smelters and/or refiners and countries of origin for conflict minerals.

Company Management Systems

Moog established management systems according to Step 1 of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance. Moog’s systems included:

Step 1A - Adopt, and clearly communicate to suppliers and the public, a company policy for the supply chain of minerals originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas.

•Implemented a conflict minerals policy.

•Policy made publicly available.

https://www.moog.com/investors/corporate-governance-guidelines/policy-statement---regarding-conflict-minerals.html

•Policy communicated directly to suppliers as part of RCOI process.

Step 1B - Structure internal management to support supply chain due diligence.

•Maintained an internal cross functional team to support supply chain due diligence.

•Appointed a member of the senior staff with the necessary competence, knowledge, and experience to oversee supply chain due diligence.

•Applied the resources necessary to support the operation and monitoring of these processes including internal resources and external consulting support.

Step 1C - Establish a system of transparency, information collection and control over the supply chain.

•Implemented a process to collect required supplier and smelter RCOI and due diligence data. Full details on the supply chain data gathering are included in the RCOI and due diligence sections of this Report.

Step 1D - Strengthen company engagement with suppliers.

•Directly engaged suppliers during RCOI process.

•Reviewed supplier responses as part of RCOI process.

•Added conflict minerals compliance to new supplier contracts and Moog’s supplier code of conduct.

•Implemented a plan to improve the quantity and quality of supplier and smelter responses year over year.

Step 1E - Establish a company and/or mine level grievance mechanism.

•Recognized the RMAP’s three audit protocols for gold, tin/tantalum, and tungsten as valid sources of smelter or mine level grievances.

•Moog’s ethics violations reporting system allows employees to voice confidentially without any fear of retribution, any concerns with the violations of the Moog’s conflict minerals policy.

•Moog’s internal policy and procedure outlines the issuance of requests for corrective action of suppliers in order to remove non-conformant and/or high-risk smelters from the supply chain.

Reasonable Country of Origin Inquiry (RCOI)

Moog designed its RCOI process in accordance with Step 2A and 2B of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance. Moog’s RCOI process involved two stages:

Stage 1 - Supplier RCOI (Step 2A of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance)

Stage 2 - Smelter RCOI (Step 2B of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance)

Supplier RCOI

Moog designed its supplier RCOI process to identify, to the best of Moog’s efforts, the smelters in Moog’s supply chain in accordance with Step 2A of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance. Moog’s supplier RCOI process for the 2020 reporting period included the following:

•Developing a list of suppliers providing 3TG containing components to Moog.

•Contacting each supplier and requesting the industry standard Conflict Minerals Reporting Template (“CMRT”) including smelter information.

•Reviewing supplier responses for accuracy and completeness.

•Amalgamating supplier provided smelters into a single unique list of smelters meeting the definition of a smelter under one of three industry recognized audit protocols.

•Reviewing the final smelter list (and compared it to industry peers) to determine if Moog identified reasonably all of the smelters in their supply chain.

For the 2020 reporting period, Moog’s RCOI process was executed by Claigan Environmental Inc. (“Claigan”). The design of Claigan’s process was independently audited in 2015 against the requirements of Step 2 of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

With an 83% response rate, Moog’s suppliers identified 336 smelters within their supply chain. The specific list of smelters is included in the Smelter and Refineries section at the end of this report.

Smelter RCOI

Due to the overlap between supplier RCOI and smelter due diligence, the smelter RCOI process is summarized in the due diligence section of this report.

Due Diligence

Moog’s Due Diligence Process was designed in accordance with the applicable sections of Steps 2, 3, and 4 of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

Smelter RCOI and Due Diligence

Moog’s smelter RCOI and due diligence process were designed to:

•Identify the scope of the risk assessment of the mineral supply chain (OECD Step 2B).

•Assess whether the smelters/refiners have carried out all elements of due diligence for responsible supply chains of minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas (OECD Step 2C).

•Where necessary, carry out, including through participation in industry-driven programs, joint spot checks at the mineral smelter/refiner’s own facilities (OECD Step 2D).

Moog’s smelter RCOI and Due Diligence Process included the following:

•For each smelter identified in Moog’s supply chain:

•Direct engagement attempted of the smelter to obtain whether or not the smelter sources from the DRC or surrounding countries.

•For smelters that declared directly or through their relevant industry association that they did not source from the DRC or surrounding countries, and were not recognized as conflict free by the RMAP, Moog reviewed publicly available information to determine if there was any contrary evidence to the smelter’s declaration. The sources reviewed included:

•Public internet search (Google) of the facility in combination with each of the covered countries

•Review of specific NGO publications. NGO publications reviewed included:

•Enough Project

•Global Witness

•Southern Africa Resource Watch

•Radio Okapi

•The most recent UN Group of Experts report on the DRC.

•For smelters that did not respond to direct engagement, Moog reviewed publicly available sources to determine if there was ‘any reason to believe’ that the smelter may have sourced from the Covered Countries during the reporting period.

•Moog reviewed the same sources as those used to compare against smelter sourcing declarations.

•For high risk smelters (smelters that are sourcing from or there is reason to believe they may be sourcing from the Covered Countries), Moog requires the smelter be audited and recognized as conflict free by the RMAP.

•For high risk smelters that have not been audited and recognized as conflict free by the RMAP, Moog communicates the risk to a designated member of senior management (OECD Step 3A) and conducts risk mitigation on the smelter according to OECD Step 3B.

For the 2020 reporting period, Moog’s smelter RCOI and Due Diligence process was executed by Claigan Environmental Inc. (Claigan). Claigan was independently audited in 2015 against the requirements of Step 2 of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

Moog’s suppliers identified 336 smelters. Moog identified 43 smelters that source, or there is a reason to believe they source, from the Covered Countries.

Moog determined that 33 of these 43 smelters have been audited and recognized as conflict free by the RMAP. Moog conducted risk mitigation on the remaining 10 smelters.

Risk Mitigation

Moog conducted risk mitigation on 10 smelters that were not recognized as conflict free by the RMAP and were sourcing from the DRC or surrounding countries. Moog’s risk mitigation was designed in accordance with Step 3B of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance. Moog’s risk mitigation process included the following:

•Additional due diligence to determine if there was any reason to believe the smelter directly or indirectly finance or benefit armed groups in the DRC or adjoining countries.

•Verifying with internal stakeholders and relevant suppliers whether 3TGs from the specific smelter were actually in Moog’s supply chain in the 2020 reporting period.

•Direct engagement with each high-risk smelter to verify risk and to encourage the smelter to become conflict free.

•Additional inquiry into each supplier as to whether or not the materials provided to Moog contain 3TGs from the named smelter.

Moog did not require the removal of smelters subject to Moog’s risk mitigation process if there was no reason to believe they were directly or indirectly financing or benefiting armed groups in the DRC or adjoining countries. These smelters are scheduled to be re-visited in the 2021 reporting period. This process is consistent with Step 3B of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance and helps prevent unnecessary boycotts of the DRC or adjoining countries.

Risk mitigation was required for 10 smelters verified by suppliers potentially to be in Moog’s supply chain. Note that for the 2020 reporting period, escalations to remove high risk smelters was more robust. The process was carried out by Claigan, who contacted all suppliers that identified high risk smelters to remove those smelters from Moog’s supply chain.

Gold Smelter – African Gold Refinery

•Reports published in 2018 allege that African Gold Refinery is linked to gold smuggled from the DRC. AGR denies these allegations and claims they are seeking 3rd party confirmation of their sourcing practices.

•AGR has been connected to smuggled gold from the DRC in the past and has never been transparent about its supply chain. This is reiterated in the 2019 UN Group of Experts Report on the DRC which states AGR is still refusing to convey supplier information.

•African Gold Refinery was identified on 84 supplier CMRTs, 6 of 84 have declared no known impact to Moog, the remaining suppliers have not responded.