Dear Stockholders:

I am pleased to invite you to attend our 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Clorox delivered strong results in fiscal year 2017 and we continue to be committed to good growth: growth that is profitable, sustainable, and responsible. We are focused on delivering products and brands that provide superior value, investing in product innovation and the consumer experience, and being an industry leader in using marketing and technology to enable real-time consumer engagement. We also view employee engagement as critical, as engagement has been shown to correlate to a company’s performance. Inclusion and diversity are top business priorities as we benefit from the diverse backgrounds and perspectives of our employees, which we also see reflected in our female and minority leaders on the management team and Board of Directors.

Our Board continues to provide excellent guidance and leadership and to set the right tone at the top. Whether it’s strategic oversight, risk management, or human capital management, the Board is focused on the long term. We are constantly thinking about how the Company must evolve as an industry leader in a rapidly changing world, and in a way that is responsible and sustainable to continue to generate financial returns for you, our stockholders.

We look forward to sharing our progress and results with you at our Annual Meeting. Thank you for your continued support and investment in Clorox.

Sincerely,

Benno Dorer
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Dear Stockholders:

As Lead Director of Clorox, it is my honor to serve with our other independent directors as an independent voice representing you, the stockholders, to help ensure that the Company continues to be managed with integrity, strong corporate governance, and appropriate oversight of strategy and risks.

In fiscal year 2017, we were pleased to add three new directors, each of whom brings a unique and valuable perspective to the Board. Once again this year I participated in outreach meetings with our stockholders to engage in two-way dialogue and understand the issues that are most important to our investors. As a Board, we regularly discuss and consider investor feedback on a wide variety of governance, compensation, and other topics as we strive to be responsible stewards of the Company.

I am also committed to diversity. As Clorox seeks to develop its diverse workforce and to foster a culture that is inclusive of different perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds, I encourage and engage with our employees directly. Talent management is crucial to the business and we must continue building and retaining our pipeline of high-potential employees to continue to grow profitably, in a values-led manner, and for the long term.

On behalf of the independent directors, thank you for your confidence and your support.

Sincerely,

Pamela Thomas-Graham
Lead Director

Fiscal Year 2017 Business Performance

Successes for the Company in fiscal year 2017 included:

Fiscal Year 2017 Pay For Performance

Our fiscal year 2017 results and compensation decisions continue to illustrate that our pay-for-performance philosophy works as intended, with pay being driven by performance in the following ways:

In 2017, the Management Development and Compensation Committee undertook a detailed assessment of the Company’s overall compensation program for alignment to our business strategy, our stockholders’ interests, our pay-for-performance philosophy, and market practices. This review resulted in various changes to the annual and long-term incentive programs, which are effective beginning with fiscal year 2018, as described in greater detail in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section.

A substantial portion of our targeted executive compensation is at-risk variable compensation, with 86% of compensation for our Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and 70% of compensation for all of our other named executive officers being at-risk.

Compensation Mix - CEO(1)

Fixed compensation = 14%  Variable compensation = 86%

Base salary is the only fixed compensation component, as outlined in the following charts, which reflect target compensation for fiscal year 2017.

Compensation Mix - Average of All Other NEOs(1)

Fixed compensation = 30%  Variable compensation = 70%

What We Don’t Have

At the Annual Meeting, twelve people will be elected as members of the Board of Directors to serve until the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified. The Board, upon the recommendation of the Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee, has nominated the twelve people listed below for election at the Annual Meeting.

Each of the nominees for director has agreed to be named in this proxy statement and to serve as a director if elected. Each nominee is currently serving as a director of the Company. Russell Weiner was appointed to the Board during calendar year 2017 and is being nominated for election by the stockholders for the first time. Mr. Weiner was recommended to the Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee by a director recruitment firm retained by the Committee to identify potential director candidates.

The Board unanimously recommends a vote FOR each of the Board’s twelve nominees for director listed below. The Board believes that each of the nominees listed below is highly qualified and has the background, skills, experience, and attributes that qualify each of the nominees to serve as a director of the Company (see each nominee’s biographical information and the Evaluation of Director Qualifications and Experience section below for more information). The recommendation of the Board is based on its carefully considered judgment that the background, skills, experience, and attributes of the nominees make them the best candidates to serve on our Board.

Certain information with respect to each nominee appears on the following pages, including age, period served as a director, position (if any) with the Company, business experience, directorships of other publicly owned corporations, including other such directorships held during the past five years (if any), and other relevant experience and qualifications, including service on certain non-profit or non-public company boards, that contributed to the conclusion that each director is qualified to serve as a director of the Company.

Majority Voting for Directors. The Company’s Bylaws require each director to be elected by a majority of the votes cast with respect to such director in uncontested elections (the number of shares voted FOR a director must exceed the number of shares voted AGAINST that director). Under the Company’s Bylaws, any director who fails to be elected by a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election must tender his or her resignation to the Board. The Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee would then make a recommendation to the Board whether to accept or reject the resignation, or whether other action should be taken. The Board would act on the Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee’s recommendation and publicly disclose its decision and

the rationale behind it within 90 days from the date the election results are certified. A director who tenders his or her resignation would not participate in the Board’s decision.

The people designated in the proxy and voting instruction card intend to vote your shares represented by proxy FOR the election of each of these nominees, unless you include instructions to the contrary. In the event any director nominee is unable to serve or for good cause will not serve, the persons named as proxies may vote for a substitute nominee recommended by the Board or the Board may reduce the size of the Board.

The Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee works closely with our Board in determining the skills, experiences, and characteristics desired for the Board as a whole and for its individual members, and screens and recommends candidates for nomination by the full Board. While the Board has not established any specific minimum qualifications that a potential nominee must possess, director candidates, including incumbent directors, are assessed based upon criteria established by the Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee in light of the Company’s long-term strategy, the skills and backgrounds currently represented on the Board, and any specific needs identified in the Committee’s evaluation of Board composition. Criteria include broad-based leadership and business skills and experience, prominence and reputation in their professions, global business and social perspective, ability to effectively represent the long-term interests of our stockholders, and personal integrity and judgment. The ability of incumbent directors to continue to contribute to the Board is also considered in connection with the renominating process.

The following experience and skills, among others, have been specifically identified by the Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee as being important in creating a diverse and well-rounded Board:

In addition, under the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines (Governance Guidelines), non-management directors whose primary job responsibilities change must offer their resignation for the Board’s consideration.

As highlighted in our Governance Guidelines, the Board values diversity and recognizes the importance of having unique and complementary backgrounds and perspectives in the board room. The Board endeavors to bring together diverse skills, professional experience, perspectives, age, race, ethnicity, gender, and cultural backgrounds that reflect the Company’s consumer and investor base, and to guide the Company in a way that reflects the best interests

of all of our stockholders. The Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee assesses the effectiveness of these efforts by examining the overall composition of the Board, assessing how individual director candidates can contribute to the overall success of the Board, and reviewing individual, committee, and Board evaluation results.

The Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee considers recommendations from many sources, including stockholders, regarding possible candidates for director. Such recommendations, together with biographical and business experience information (similar to that required to be disclosed under applicable Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules and regulations) regarding the candidate, should be submitted to The Clorox Company, c/o Corporate Secretary, 1221 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612-1888. The Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee evaluates all candidates for the Board in the same manner, including those suggested by stockholders.

In addition, our Bylaws permit a stockholder or group of up to 20 stockholders who have owned at least 3% of the Company’s Common Stock for at least three years to submit director nominees (up to 20% of the Board) for inclusion in the Company’s proxy materials if the stockholder(s) provide(s) timely written notice of such nomination(s) and the stockholder(s) and the nominee(s) satisfy the requirements specified in the Company’s Bylaws. Stockholders who wish to nominate directors for inclusion in the Company’s proxy materials or directly at an annual meeting of stockholders in accordance with the procedures in our Bylaws should follow the instructions under the Stockholder Proposals and Director Nominations for the 2018 Annual Meeting section of this proxy statement.

Stockholders and interested parties may direct communications to individual directors, including the lead director, to a Board committee, to the independent directors as a group, or to the Board as a whole, by addressing the communications to the named individual, to the committee, to the independent directors as a group, or to the Board as a whole and sending them to The Clorox

Company, c/o Corporate Secretary, 1221 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612-1888. The Corporate Secretary will review all communications so addressed and will forward to the addressee(s) all communications determined to bear substantively on the business, management, or governance of the Company.

Only our non-employee directors receive compensation for their services as directors. The Company’s non-employee director compensation program is comprised of cash compensation and an annual grant of deferred stock units.

The Management Development and Compensation Committee has the responsibility for making recommendations regarding non-employee director compensation. The Management Development and Compensation Committee reviews the form and amount of compensation of non-employee directors at least once a year to ensure that the Company’s non-employee directors are being compensated appropriately relative to peer companies. The Management Development and Compensation Committee retains the services of an

independent compensation consulting firm to assist it in the performance of its duties. During fiscal year 2017, the Management Development and Compensation Committee used the services of Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (FW Cook). FW Cook’s work with the Management Development and Compensation Committee included data analysis and guidance and recommendations regarding compensation levels relative to our compensation peer group (see discussion regarding the peer group in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section below) as well as trends and recent developments in the area of non-employee director compensation. Clorox generally aims to compensate non-employee directors at or near the median of the compensation peer group.

Each non-employee director receives an annual grant of deferred stock units, the value of which was increased from $130,000 to $145,000 effective October 1, 2016. The aggregate value of the deferred stock unit award amount earned by a non-employee director serving for the full fiscal year 2017 was $141,250. Awards are made as of the last business day in the calendar year and represent payment for services provided during such calendar year.

Directors who serve as non-employee Board members for less than the full calendar year receive pro-rated awards based on the number of full fiscal quarters they served as a non-employee Board member during the calendar year. Deferred stock units accrue dividend equivalents and the balance of a director’s deferred stock unit account is paid out in Common Stock following the director’s termination of service, as described in greater detail under Payment Elections below.

In addition to the deferred stock units described above, directors receive cash compensation. Cash compensation consists of annual cash retainer amounts and any special assignment fees. The following table lists the various

retainers paid for Board service and service as the independent chair, lead director, or a committee chair during fiscal year 2017:

Directors who serve as a Board member, lead director, independent chair, or committee chair for less than the full fiscal year receive pro-rated retainer amounts based on the number of days they served in such position during the fiscal year. In addition to the retainer amounts, each non-employee director is entitled to receive a fee of $2,500 per day for any special assignment requested by the Board. No special assignment fees were paid in fiscal year 2017.

Payment Elections

Under the Company’s Independent Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan, a director may annually elect to receive all or a portion of his or her cash compensation in the form of cash, Common Stock, deferred cash, or deferred stock units.

Payment in Stock. Directors who elect to receive cash compensation amounts in the form of Common Stock are issued shares of Common Stock based on the fair market value of the Common Stock as determined by the closing price of the Common Stock on the last trading day of the quarter for which the fees were earned.

Elective Deferral Program. For directors who elect deferred cash, the amount deferred is credited to an unfunded cash account that is credited with interest at an annual interest rate equal to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s prime lending rate in effect on January 1 of each year. Upon termination of service as a director, the amounts credited to the director’s deferred cash account are paid out in five annual cash installments or in one lump-sum cash payment, as elected by the director. For directors who elect deferred stock units, the amount deferred is credited to an unfunded account in the form of units equivalent to the fair market value of the Common Stock on the date on which the fees are scheduled to be paid. When dividends are declared, additional deferred stock units are allocated to the director’s deferred stock unit account in amounts equivalent to the dollar amount of Common Stock dividends paid by the Company divided by the fair market value of the Common Stock on the date the dividends are paid. Upon termination of service as a director, the amounts credited to the deferred stock unit account, which include any elective deferrals and the annual deferred stock unit grants described above, are paid out in shares of Common Stock in five annual installments or in one lump sum, as elected by the director.

The Board believes that the alignment of directors’ interests with those of stockholders is strengthened when Board members are also stockholders. The Board therefore requires that each non-employee director, within five years of first being elected, own Common Stock or deferred stock units having a market value of at least five times his or her annual cash retainer. This program is designed to ensure that directors acquire a meaningful and significant ownership

interest in the Company during their tenure on the Board. Furthermore, as directors must hold the deferred stock units until termination of their service on the Board, they have an incentive to promote long-term value for stockholders during their service as a director. As of June 30, 2017, each non-employee director was in compliance with the guidelines.

Consistent with our focus on good growth, we are committed to strong corporate governance and corporate responsibility. We regularly review our policies and practices to further the interests of our stockholders, promote the long-term health of our business, provide effective oversight of management,

and encourage responsible and ethical behavior by our directors and employees. Our Governance Guidelines, Code of Conduct, and other company policies set forth a framework to further these goals and guide our decisions, as described in greater detail below.

Corporate responsibility is the foundation of how Clorox operates, and we consider it integral to our business. As a signatory to the United Nations Global Compact, we are committed to its Ten Principles by driving our corporate responsibility strategy, a comprehensive set of commitments across our Company: from human rights, labor, and product safety to transparency, environmental sustainability, and contributions to communities where we operate. Our commitment to sustainability includes, among other goals, reducing our operational footprint while growing our business, making sustainability improvements to our products, and working to drive transparency and sustainability progress in our supply chain.

Clorox is also committed to helping communities by supporting causes that promote health and well-being and education. The Clorox Company Foundation provides grants to support youth, education, and cultural and civic organizations where our employees live and work; we encourage our employees to support causes of their choosing by volunteering and by participating in our corporate giving campaign; and we have a long history

of providing products and donations to assist with disaster relief globally, such as in the wake of recent hurricanes, including Harvey and Irma.

We also believe our financial performance and commitment to corporate responsibility go hand in hand. Each year, we publish an integrated report that highlights the intersection of our business and corporate responsibility commitments by reporting our financial, environmental, social, and governance performance. In furtherance of our focus on corporate responsibility, in fiscal year 2017, we changed the name of our Nominating and Governance Committee to the Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee and enhanced the Committee’s charter in the areas of corporate responsibility and sustainability. The revised charter expands the Committee’s responsibilities to include oversight of corporate responsibility and sustainability matters. While the Committee as well as the full Board has historically provided oversight in these areas, the Board felt it was important to formalize these responsibilities, reflecting our long-standing values and commitment to best practices in corporate responsibility and sustainability.

During the past fiscal year, members of the Board and management held meetings with a significant portion of investors to discuss a variety of key corporate governance, executive compensation, and corporate responsibility topics. These meetings provide an opportunity for two-way dialogue and for our management and Board to discuss and better understand the issues that matter most to our stockholders. For example, our directors considered the feedback from these meetings, along with best practices,

market standards, policies at other companies, and Clorox’s stockholder base and unique circumstances, in determining that the Company’s existing proxy access right continues to be most appropriate for the Company. Our Board also took into consideration stockholder input in reviewing the Company’s compensation plan design and metrics, as described in greater detail in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section.

The Board has adopted Governance Guidelines that can be found in the Corporate Governance section on the Company’s website at https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/who-we-are/corporate-governance/governance-guidelines/, and are available in print to any stockholder who requests them from The Clorox Company, c/o Corporate Secretary, 1221 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612-1888. The Governance Guidelines present a framework for the governance of the Company. They

describe responsibilities, qualifications, and operational matters applicable to the Board and the Board committees and include provisions relating to the evaluation of the CEO and ordinary-course and emergency succession planning. The Governance Guidelines are reviewed at least annually by the Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee, which recommends changes to the Board as appropriate.

The Governance Guidelines provide that a substantial majority of the Board must consist of independent directors. The Board determines whether individual Board members are independent, as defined by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The Board has adopted director independence standards, which are set forth in the Governance Guidelines, to assist it in assessing the independence of directors. The Board makes an affirmative determination regarding the independence of each director annually, based upon the recommendation of the Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee.

The Board has determined that each of the Company’s non-management directors is independent under the NYSE listing standards and the independence standards set forth in the Governance Guidelines: Messrs. Fleischer, Mackay, Matschullat, Noddle, Weiner, and Williams, Mmes. Banse, Lee, Thomas-Graham, and Ticknor, and Dr. Carmona. Mr. Dorer is not independent as a result of his service as the Company’s CEO. In addition, each of retired directors Messrs. Harad and Rebolledo was independent under the NYSE listing standards and the independence standards set forth in the Governance Guidelines during the period in fiscal 2017 during which such director served.

The Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders for the Board to have flexibility in determining the Board leadership structure of the Company. Over the years, the Board has had a variety of leadership structures, including an independent chair structure with a separate CEO; an executive chair structure, along with a separate independent lead director and separate CEO; and a combined chair and CEO structure with a separate independent lead director. The Company currently has a combined chair and CEO role with a strong independent lead director, as described in greater detail below. The Board believes that having flexibility to determine the optimal leadership structure based on the Company’s current circumstances and anticipated needs, including whether to separate or combine the roles of chair and CEO, is important and has served the Company and its stockholders well.

The Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee regularly reviews the leadership structure of the Board. In addition to the Company’s specific circumstances, it takes into account market practices,

investor feedback, and corporate governance studies and expert commentary, among other things. Since August 2016, the Board leadership structure has consisted of a combined Chairman and CEO role held by Mr. Dorer, a strong independent lead director position held by Ms. Thomas-Graham, and strong independent committee chairs. The Board believes that Mr. Dorer’s leadership in developing the Company’s 2020 Strategy, his in-depth knowledge of the Company’s operations, and his strong working relationship with the independent members of the Board make him best suited to chair the regular Board meetings as key business and strategic issues are discussed and to serve as Chairman of the Board at this time. This role allows him to drive execution of the Company’s strategic plans and facilitate effective communication between management and the Board, to bring key issues to the Board’s attention, and to see that the Board’s guidance and decisions are implemented effectively by management. At the same time, in selecting Ms. Thomas-Graham to serve as the independent lead director, the Board noted her strong leadership and qualifications, including her experience as a CEO and her tenure on the Board, among other factors,

which contribute to her ability to fulfill the role of lead director effectively and independently. The Company’s Governance Guidelines require an independent director to serve as a lead director if the position of Chairman is held by a management director.

The lead director is elected annually by and from the independent directors with clearly delineated and comprehensive duties and responsibilities. To qualify as lead director, a director must have served as a member of the Board for a minimum of three years. The duties of the lead director, which are also included in the Governance Guidelines, include coordinating the activities of the independent directors and serving as a liaison between the Chairman and the independent directors. In addition, the lead director:

In addition to the duties and responsibilities listed above, Ms. Thomas-Graham has taken an active role in the Company’s diversity efforts and outreach to employees, including hosting small group meetings with high-potential, diverse employees and holding town hall meetings with all employees. She also actively participates in stockholder engagement and has met with a number of the Company’s major stockholders.

All of the Company’s directors, other than Mr. Dorer, are “independent” as defined by the NYSE rules. The Board believes that this structure promotes effective governance and that, under the present circumstances, the leadership structure described above is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

The Board has established three standing committees: the Audit Committee, the Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee, and the Management Development and Compensation Committee. Each of these committees consists only of non-management directors whom the Board has determined are independent under the NYSE listing standards and the Board’s independence standards set forth in the Company’s Governance Guidelines. In addition, directors who serve on the Audit Committee and the Management Development and

Compensation Committee must meet additional, heightened independence and qualification criteria applicable to directors serving on these committees under the NYSE listing standards. The charters for these committees are available in the Corporate Governance section of the Company’s website at https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/who-we-are/corporate-governance/committee-charters, or in print by contacting The Clorox Company, c/o Corporate Secretary, 1221 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612-1888.

Audit Committee. The Audit Committee is the principal link between the Board and the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee has the functions and duties set forth in its charter, including representing and assisting the Board in overseeing:

The Audit Committee’s duties also include preparing the report required by the SEC proxy rules to be included in the Company’s annual proxy statement. The Board has determined that directors Noddle, Ticknor, and Williams are audit committee financial experts, as defined by SEC rules, and each member of the Audit Committee is financially literate, as defined by NYSE rules.

Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee. The Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee has the functions and duties set forth in its charter, including:

Management Development and Compensation Committee. The Management Development and Compensation Committee has the functions and duties set forth in its charter, including:

The Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee is responsible for overseeing the Board, committee, and individual director evaluation process. Under the Governance Guidelines, the Board and each of the Audit, Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility, and Management Development and Compensation Committees are required to conduct an annual self-evaluation. The evaluations include a range of issues designed to assess Board and committee performance, including Board and committee composition, structure, information received, accountability, and effectiveness, among other topics.

Additionally, the Board conducts individual director interviews as part of its evaluation process. Each director provides an individual assessment as well as any feedback

they may have on other Board members’ performance on an annual basis. The individual assessments are conducted by the chair of the Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee, who summarizes and reports the results and any related recommendations to the Nominating, Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee and the full Board.

As a result of the evaluation process, the Board has made a number of changes, including, for example, adding regular cybersecurity updates to Audit Committee meeting agendas, adding new topics or devoting more time to particular topics and businesses of interest, incorporating external speakers on certain topics, revising the format and focus of Board materials, and identifying the skills and expertise desired for future director candidates.

The Board held six meetings during fiscal year 2017. All incumbent directors attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board and committees of which they were members during fiscal year 2017 during the period in which they served on the Board. All members of the Board are

expected to attend the Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Each of the eleven members of the Board at the time of the Company’s 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on November 16, 2016, attended the meeting.

The independent directors generally meet in executive session at each regularly scheduled Board meeting without the presence of management directors or employees of the Company to discuss various matters related to the oversight

of the Company, the management of the Board’s affairs, and the CEO’s performance. The lead director chairs the executive sessions.

The Company has a long-standing policy of prohibiting its directors, officers, and employees from entering into transactions that are an actual or potential conflict of interest. The Company’s Code of Conduct has a detailed provision prohibiting conflicts of interests and is available on the Company’s website at https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/who-we-are/corporate-governance/codes-of-conduct.

Additionally, the Company has a written policy regarding review and approval of related person transactions by the Audit Committee (Related Person Policy). The Related Person Policy defines an “Interested Transaction” as any transaction, arrangement, or relationship or series of similar transactions, arrangements, or relationships (including any indebtedness or guarantee of indebtedness) in which (i) the aggregate amount involved in any fiscal year will or may be expected to exceed $120,000 (including any periodic payments or installments due on or after the beginning of the Company’s last completed fiscal year and, in the case of indebtedness, the largest amount expected to be outstanding and the amount of annual interest thereon), (ii) the Company is a participant, and (iii) any Related Person (as defined below) has or will have a direct or indirect interest (other than solely as a result of being a director or a less than 10% beneficial owner of another entity).

A “Related Person” is (i) any person who is or was (since the beginning of the Company’s last fiscal year, even if they do not presently serve in that role) an executive officer, director, or nominee for election as a director, (ii) a beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Company’s Common Stock, or (iii) an immediate family member of any of the foregoing. For purposes of this definition, “immediate family member” includes a person’s spouse, parents, stepparents, children,

stepchildren, siblings, mothers- and fathers-in-law, sons- and daughters-in-law, brothers- and sisters-in-law, and anyone residing in such person’s home (other than a tenant or employee).

Under the Related Person Policy, if a new Interested Transaction is identified for approval, it is brought to the Audit Committee to determine if the proposed transaction is reasonable and fair to the Company. The Audit Committee will review the material facts of all Interested Transactions that require its approval and either approve or disapprove of the entry into the Interested Transaction.

The Related Person Policy also contains categories of preapproved transactions that the Board has identified as not having a significant potential for an actual or potential conflict of interest or improper benefit.

In determining whether to approve or ratify an Interested Transaction, the Audit Committee will take into account, among other factors it deems appropriate, whether the Interested Transaction is on terms no less favorable than terms generally available to an unaffiliated third party under the same or similar circumstances and the extent of the Related Person’s interest in the transaction.

No director participates in any discussion or approval of an Interested Transaction for which he or she is a Related Person, except that the director will provide all material information concerning the Interested Transaction to the Audit Committee. There were no transactions considered to be an Interested Transaction during the Company’s 2017 fiscal year.

The Company has adopted a Code of Conduct, which can be found in the Corporate Governance section of the Company’s website, https:// www.thecloroxcompany.com/who-we-are/corporate-governance/codes-of-conduct, or obtained in print by contacting The Clorox Company, c/o Corporate Secretary, 1221 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612-1888.

The Code of Conduct applies to all of the Company’s employees, including executives, as well as directors. We also have established a separate Business Partner Code of Conduct outlining our standards and expectations of our suppliers and other business partners, which can also be found at https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/who-we-are/ corporate-governance/codes-of-conduct.

The Board has responsibility for the oversight of the Company’s risk management, while the Company’s management is responsible for the day-to-day risk management process. With the oversight of the Board, the Company has a comprehensive enterprise risk management program in place. The Company has an Enterprise Risk Management Steering Committee (ERM Committee), which consists of a cross-functional team of senior leaders and key executives. The ERM Committee oversees the annual key risk identification process, whereby it identifies the top risks that the Company faces with respect to its business, operations, strategy, and other factors, as well as the key mitigation strategies and the risk owner(s). At least annually, and generally in connection with the Board’s annual strategy meeting, management reports on and discusses the identified risks and risk mitigation and management efforts with the Board. The Board may allocate responsibility to a specific committee to examine a particular risk in detail if the committee is in the best position to review and assess the risk. For example, the Audit Committee reviews compliance and risk management programs and practices related to accounting and financial reporting matters and financial risk management, and the Management Development and Compensation Committee reviews the risks related to the executive compensation structure. The Audit Committee also receives regular updates relating to cybersecurity. In the event that a committee is allocated responsibility for examining and analyzing a specific risk, such committee reports on the relevant risk exposure during its regular reports to the full Board to facilitate proper risk oversight by the entire Board.

As part of its responsibilities, the Management Development and Compensation Committee periodically reviews the Company’s compensation policies and programs to ensure that the compensation program is able to provide incentives to employees, including executive officers, while mitigating

excessive risk-taking. The overall executive compensation program contains various provisions that mitigate against excessive risk-taking, including:

Based on its review and the analysis provided by its independent compensation consultant, FW Cook, the Management Development and Compensation Committee has determined that the risks arising from the Company’s compensation policies and practices for its employees, including executive officers, are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The following table shows, as of July 31, 2017 (except as otherwise indicated below), the holdings of Common Stock by (i) any entity or person known to the Company to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock, (ii) each director and nominee for director and each of the six individuals named in the Summary Compensation Table (the named executive officers), and (iii) all current directors and executive officers

of the Company as a group. As discussed in the Director Compensation section of this proxy statement, the majority of director compensation is delivered in the form of deferred stock units, which are paid out in Common Stock following a director’s termination of service. Because the directors cannot dispose of those shares while they serve on the Board, they are not reflected in this table. See footnote 2 below.

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC regulations require the Company’s directors, certain officers, and holders of more than 10% of the Company’s Common Stock to file reports of ownership on Form 3 and changes in ownership on Form 4 or 5 with the SEC. The reporting directors, officers, and 10% stockholders are also required by SEC rules to furnish the Company with copies of all

Section 16(a) reports they file. Based solely on its review of copies of such reports received or written representations from its directors and such covered officers, the Company believes that its directors and officers complied with all applicable Section 16(a) filing requirements during fiscal year 2017.

We are seeking a non-binding, advisory vote from our stockholders to approve the compensation of our named executive officers. This proposal gives our stockholders the opportunity to express their views on the Company’s executive compensation, and is commonly referred to as a “say-on-pay” proposal. This vote is only advisory and will not be binding upon the Company or the Board. However, the Management Development and Compensation Committee, which is responsible for designing and administering the Company’s executive compensation program, values the opinions expressed by stockholders and encourages all stockholders to vote their shares on this matter.

As discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this proxy statement, which begins on page 29, the Company’s compensation programs are designed to align pay with short- and long-term financial and strategic objectives to build stockholder value, while providing

a competitive level of compensation to recruit, retain, and motivate talented executives. The Board urges you to consider the factors discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section when deciding how to vote on this Proposal 2.

At our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on November 16, 2016, our stockholders overwhelmingly approved our executive compensation policies, with approximately 93% of votes cast in favor of our proposal. We value this positive endorsement by our stockholders and believe that the outcome signals our stockholders’ support of our compensation program and continued our general approach to compensation for fiscal year 2017. We provide our stockholders the opportunity to vote on the compensation of our named executive officers every year. It is expected that the next vote on executive compensation will be at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

The Board recommends a vote FOR the advisory vote to approve executive compensation. The Company is asking its stockholders to support the compensation of the named executive officers as described in this proxy statement. This vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our named executive officers in fiscal year 2017 and the philosophy, policies, and practices underlying that compensation, which are described in this proxy statement. The Board believes that the Company’s overall compensation process effectively implements its compensation philosophy and achieves its goals.

Accordingly, the Board recommends a vote FOR the adoption of the following advisory resolution, which will be presented at the Annual Meeting:

“RESOLVED, that the stockholders of The Clorox Company approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the named executive officers, as disclosed in The Clorox Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Summary Compensation Table, and the other related tables and disclosure.”

The affirmative vote of a majority of the votes present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting is required to approve this proposal.

This vote is advisory, and therefore not binding on the Company, the Board, or the Management Development and Compensation Committee. However, the Board and the

Management Development and Compensation Committee value the opinions of the Company’s stockholders and, to the extent there is any significant vote against the named executive officers’ compensation as disclosed in the proxy statement, we will consider such stockholders’ concerns

and the Management Development and Compensation Committee will evaluate whether any actions are necessary to address those concerns.

The people designated in the proxy and voting instruction card will vote your shares FOR approval unless you include instructions to the contrary.

In accordance with SEC rules, this proposal gives our stockholders the opportunity to indicate how frequently (every year, every two years, or every three years) they want to vote on an advisory basis to approve the compensation of our named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to the SEC’s compensation disclosure rules, such as the one in Proposal 2 above, which are commonly referred to as “say-on-pay” votes. Stockholders last voted on the

frequency of say-on-pay votes at the 2011 Annual Meeting, at which time stockholders overwhelmingly voted for an annual say-on-pay vote.

By voting on this Proposal 3, stockholders may indicate whether they would prefer an advisory vote to approve named executive officer compensation once every one, two, or three years. Alternatively, you may abstain from voting.

The Board recommends a vote for the option of ONE YEAR for the frequency of future advisory votes to approve executive compensation. The Board continues to believe that stockholders should vote on named executive officer compensation every year so that they may provide the Company with their direct input annually. Setting a one-year period for holding this advisory stockholder vote will enhance stockholder communication by providing a clear, simple means for the Company to obtain information on investor sentiment about

our executive compensation philosophy, policies, and practices. In addition, an annual advisory vote to approve executive compensation is consistent with the Company’s policy of seeking input from, and engaging in discussions with, its stockholders on corporate governance matters and its executive compensation program.

Accordingly, the Board recommends a vote for the option of ONE YEAR as the frequency with which stockholders are provided a say-on-pay vote.

While the Board is making a recommendation with respect to this proposal, stockholders are being asked to vote on the choices specified above, and not whether they agree or disagree with the above recommendation. The option of one, two, or three years that receives the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting by the stockholders will be the frequency for say-on-pay votes that has been selected by the stockholders. In the event that no option receives a majority of the votes, the Company will consider the option that receives the most votes cast to be

the option selected by the stockholders. However, because this vote is advisory and not binding on the Board or the Company in any way, the Board may decide that it is in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders and the Company to hold a say-on-pay vote more or less frequently than the option selected by the stockholders.

The people designated in the proxy and voting instruction card will vote your shares represented by proxy for the option of ONE YEAR unless you include instructions to the contrary.

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) describes our executive compensation philosophy and program, the compensation decisions made under this program and the specific factors we considered in making those decisions. This CD&A focuses on the compensation of our “named executive officers” for fiscal year 2017, who were:

Fiscal Year 2017 Performance Highlights

In fiscal year 2017, despite the increasingly competitive retail environment, Clorox delivered strong results with fiscal year sales growth of 4% and volume growth of 6%. This included sales growth in every quarter of the fiscal year and sales and volume improvement in all four of the Company’s reportable segments. The Company also grew diluted net earnings per share from continuing operations by 9%. In addition, the Company maintained its focus on operational efficiencies including lowering selling and administrative expenses and delivering cost savings, and continued to make progress toward its product sustainability improvement, energy, and waste reduction goals.

The Company’s 2020 Strategy aims to accelerate profitable growth by engaging employees as business owners, increasing brand investment behind superior products and technology that reaches consumers in a dynamic marketplace, expanding its brands into new categories and channels, and driving out waste in its work, processes, and products. Successes for the Company in fiscal year 2017 included:

How Pay Was Tied to the Company’s Performance in Fiscal Year 2017

Our fiscal year 2017 results and compensation decisions continue to illustrate that our pay-for-performance philosophy works as intended, with pay being driven by performance in the following ways:

Compensation Philosophy

The key principle of our compensation philosophy is to align pay with performance. We do so by delivering the majority of executive pay through “at-risk” variable incentive awards that help ensure that realized pay is tied to attainment of critical operational goals and sustainable

appreciation in stockholder value. In fiscal year 2017, approximately 86% of the targeted compensation for our CEO and approximately 70% of the targeted compensation for our other named executive officers was directly tied to the achievement of short- and long-term operating goals and total stockholder return. This approach is designed to accomplish the following:

In 2017, the Management Development and Compensation Committee undertook a detailed assessment of the Company’s overall compensation program for alignment to our business strategy, our stockholders’ interests, our pay-for-performance philosophy, and market practices. This review resulted in various changes to the annual and long-term incentive programs, which are effective beginning with fiscal year 2018, as described in greater detail below.

What We Have and Don’t Have – Elements of Our Executive Compensation Program

The following elements of our executive compensation program reflect our continued commitment to our compensation philosophy:

What We Have

What We Don’t Have

Roles and Responsibilities in Setting Executive Compensation

Management Development and Compensation Committee. The Committee is made up entirely of independent directors as defined by our Governance Guidelines and NYSE listing standards. The Committee regularly reviews the design and implementation of our executive compensation program and reports on its discussions and actions to the Board. In particular, the Committee (i) oversees our executive compensation program, (ii) approves the performance goals and strategic objectives for our named executive officers, evaluates results against those targets each year, and determines and approves the compensation of our CEO (after consulting with the other independent members of the Board) and our other named executive officers, as well as officers at or above the level of senior vice president and any other officers covered by Section 16 of the Exchange Act, and (iii) makes recommendations to the Board with respect to the structure of overall incentive and equity-based plans.

The Committee makes its determinations regarding executive compensation after consulting with management and the Committee’s independent compensation consultant (as further described below), and its decisions are based on a variety of factors, including the Company’s performance, individual executives’ performance, peer group data, and input and recommendations from the independent compensation consultant.

In 2017, the Committee conducted a comprehensive examination of the Company’s compensation plan design, evaluating the program for alignment to the Company’s business strategy, the interests of our stockholders, our pay-for-performance philosophy, and market practices. After an extensive review, which included discussion with and support from the Committee’s independent compensation consultant, consideration of stockholder input, and review of compensation data from other companies (including our compensation peer group and other companies in our industry or comparable geographies and talent markets), the Committee approved various changes to both the annual and long-term incentive programs, as described in Changes to the Annual Incentive Program for Fiscal Year

2018 and Changes to the Long-Term Incentive Program for Fiscal Year 2018 under What We Pay: Components of Our Compensation Program. These changes will be effective beginning fiscal year 2018.

The Committee evaluates individual performance based on the performance of the business or operations for which the executive is responsible, the individual’s skill set relative to industry peers, overall experience and time in the position, the critical nature of the individual’s role, difficulty of replacement, expected future contributions, readiness for promotion to a higher level, role relative to that of other executive officers, and, in the case of externally recruited named executive officers, compensation earned with a prior employer.

In determining the compensation package for each of our named executive officers other than our CEO, the Committee receives input and recommendations from our CEO and our Senior Vice President – Chief People Officer. Named executive officers do not have a role in the determination of their own compensation, but named executive officers other than our CEO do discuss their individual performance objectives with our CEO. The Committee currently consists of Dr. Carmona and Messrs. Fleischer, Mackay and Noddle.

Board of Directors. The independent members of the Board undertake a thorough process during which they review our CEO’s annual performance, and each independent director provides candid feedback and observations that are shared in aggregate with our CEO. The Board considers a variety of substantive factors it has identified as being most important for effective CEO performance, with a focus on strategy, people, operations, and values. The full Board discusses the evaluations of our CEO’s performance against these factors and then provides its compensation recommendations to the Committee. The Committee, after evaluating the Board’s recommendations and receiving input from the independent compensation consultant, then makes a final determination on our CEO’s compensation. Our CEO does not have a role in his own compensation determination other than participating in a discussion with the Board regarding his performance relative to specific targets and strategic objectives set at the beginning of the fiscal year, which the Board considers in both its compensation determination and when setting performance targets for the upcoming fiscal year.

Independent Compensation Consultant. The Committee retains the services of an independent compensation consulting firm to assist it in the performance of its duties. During fiscal year 2017, the Committee used the services of Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. FW Cook’s work with the Committee included data analysis and guidance and recommendations on the following topics:

compensation levels relative to our peers, market trends in incentive plan design, risk and reward structure of executive compensation plans, and other policies and practices, including the policies and views of third-party proxy advisory firms. FW Cook also assisted in the evaluation and implementation of changes to the Company’s incentive plans, which are effective for fiscal year 2018 and are described in Changes to the Annual Incentive Program for Fiscal Year 2018 and Changes to the Long-Term Incentive Program for Fiscal Year 2018 under What We Pay: Components of Our Compensation Program. See the section entitled Independence of the Compensation Consultant for a discussion of FW Cook’s independence from management.

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Our CEO makes compensation recommendations to the Committee for all executive officers other than himself. In making these recommendations, our CEO evaluates the performance of each executive officer and considers his or her responsibilities as well as the compensation analysis provided by the independent compensation consultant.

Other Members of Management. Senior human resources management provides analyses regarding competitive practices and pay ranges, compensation and benefit plans, policies and procedures for equity awards, perquisites, general compensation, and benefits philosophy. Senior human resources, legal, and, from time to time, finance executives attend non-executive sessions of Committee meetings to provide additional perspective and expertise.

Independence of the Compensation Consultant

Pursuant to its charter, the Committee is authorized to retain, oversee, and terminate any consultants as it deems necessary, as well as to approve the fees and other retention terms of any such consultants. Prior to retaining a compensation consultant or any other external advisor, from time to time as the Committee deems appropriate but at least annually, the Committee assesses the independence of the advisor from management. In evaluating FW Cook, the Committee’s compensation consultant, the Committee took into consideration all factors relevant to FW Cook’s independence, including the following factors specified in the NYSE listing standards:

FW Cook has provided the Committee with appropriate assurances and confirmation of its independent status in accordance with the Committee’s charter and other considerations. The Committee believes that FW Cook has been independent throughout its service to the Committee and that there is no conflict of interest between FW Cook or

Our Peer Group

The Committee uses a peer group of consumer products companies (the compensation peer group) to help determine competitive compensation rates for the Company’s executive officers, including the named executive officers. The compensation peer group was selected by the Committee based on the factors described below, with input from FW Cook. The compensation peer group is used to evaluate both the levels of executive compensation and compensation practices within the consumer products industry.

For fiscal year 2017, the compensation peer group was composed of the following 19 companies:

To determine the compensation peer group for each year, the Committee considers companies that:

The Committee annually reviews and makes adjustments to the compensation peer group as appropriate to ensure that the peer group companies continue to meet the relevant criteria. There were no changes to the compensation peer group for this fiscal year.

The Company was at the 37th percentile for revenue, 52nd percentile for net income, and 49th percentile for market capitalization compared with the compensation peer group.

For fiscal year 2017, management engaged Aon Hewitt to obtain and aggregate compensation data for the compensation peer group. This data was used to advise the Committee on setting target compensation for our named executive officers. FW Cook reviewed this information and performed an independent compensation analysis of the compensation peer group data to advise the Committee. Although each individual component of executive compensation is reviewed, particular emphasis is placed

on targeting total compensation within 15% of the median target dollar amounts of compensation of the compensation peer group. Other factors, such as an executive’s level of experience, may result in target total compensation for individual named executive officers being set above or below this median range. For fiscal year 2017, each named executive officer’s target total compensation is within 15% of the compensation peer group median.

Additional elements of our executive compensation program include retirement plans, post-termination compensation, and perquisites as appropriate to support our executive compensation philosophy. Further detail about each element is provided in the discussion below:

Base Salary. The Committee generally seeks to establish base salaries for our named executive officers within 15% of the median of the compensation peer group. The Committee considered factors such as the executive’s specific role, level of experience, and sustained performance, as well as the compensation peer group market data, in determining each named executive officer’s base salary for fiscal year 2017. Changes in base salary are approved by the Committee in September and become effective in October of each year. All base salaries that went into effect in October 2016 for the named executive officers, excluding our CEO, were within this target pay range with the exception of Mr. Foster, who was slightly below the range given his tenure as an Executive Vice President with the Company.

After conducting a review for Mr. Dorer and evaluating his individual performance and overall Company performance for fiscal year 2016, the Committee approved a base salary increase of 5.1% for fiscal year 2017, to $1,025,000,

which was within 15% of the compensation peer group median for CEOs. The annual base salary increases for our named executive officers, other than our CEO, ranged from 2.5% to 5.2%, with an average increase of 3.9%. Our CFO’s salary increase was at the high end of the range to bring his salary closer to market median, in recognition of his continued strong performance. The actual base salaries earned by our named executive officers in fiscal year 2017 are listed in the Salary column of the Summary Compensation Table.

Annual Incentives. The Company provides annual incentive awards to our named executive officers under the Company’s Executive Incentive Compensation Plan (Annual Incentive Plan). Payouts under the Annual Incentive Plan are based on the level of achievement of Company performance goals set annually by the Committee, not to exceed the stockholder-approved maximums. These performance goals are tied to Board-approved corporate financial and strategic performance goals and individual objectives, which are described below. The amounts actually paid under the Annual Incentive Plan are based on four factors: (1) a target award for each named executive officer, which is the base salary multiplied by the annual incentive target (Target Award), (2) the Company’s performance measured against

pre-established corporate financial goals (Financial Performance Multiplier), (3) the Company’s level of achievement of various strategic metrics (Strategic Metrics Multiplier), and (4) the named executive officer’s individual performance (Individual Performance Multiplier), which is

based primarily on the performance of the operations or functions under the individual’s responsibility. The final individual Annual Incentive Plan payout is determined by the following formula:

The Financial Performance Multiplier can range from 0% to 200% based on an objective assessment of Company performance versus goals established by the Committee at the beginning of the year. The Strategic Metrics and Individual Performance Multipliers, which are also determined by the Committee, typically have a much narrower range, which makes the impact they have on the total payout significantly smaller than the Financial Performance Multiplier. Over the past three years, the range for the Strategic Metrics Multiplier was 100% to 110%, and the range for the Individual Performance Multipliers for the named executive officers was

90% to 115%. By comparison, the range for the Financial Performance Multiplier during this same time period was 96% to 171%.

Below is an illustration of the annual incentive calculation, using our CEO’s Annual Incentive Plan payout as an example. The Financial Performance Multiplier was 96% in fiscal year 2017, based on the Company’s performance compared to the targets for annual net sales and EP that were established by the Committee at the beginning of the year. With the CEO’s Individual Performance Multiplier of 110%, this resulted in a final payout that was slightly above target.

Each of the elements of the annual incentive formula is further described below.

Base Salary. The named executive officer’s actual fiscal year 2017 base salary is the starting point for the annual incentive calculation.

Annual Incentive Target. Each year, the Committee sets an annual incentive target level for each named executive officer as a percentage of his or her base salary, based on an assessment of median bonus targets in the compensation peer group and other factors such as individual experience, as noted above. The annual incentive target level is generally set near the median of bonus targets for comparable positions in the compensation peer group. The table below sets forth the targets for the fiscal year 2017 annual incentive awards.

Financial Performance Multiplier. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Committee sets financial goals for the Annual Incentive Plan based on targets approved by the Board. At the end of the year, the Committee reviews the Company’s results against the goals set at the beginning of the year.

For fiscal year 2017, the Committee established financial goals with a focus on increasing net sales and increasing EP when compared to actual operating results for fiscal year 2016, as described in greater detail below, in order to drive sustainable, profitable growth and short- and long-term total stockholder returns. The net sales and EP metrics that determine the Financial Performance Multiplier are each weighted 50% as the Committee believed this

mix effectively balances a focus on both top-line and bottom-line performance. In selecting the metrics and setting the financial goals of the Annual Incentive Plan, the Committee carefully considered whether the goals appropriately align with the goals of the long-term incentive program so that the overall compensation design does not encourage participants to take unnecessary or excessive risk or actions that are inconsistent with the Company’s short- and long-term strategic and financial objectives.

For fiscal year 2017, the financial goals for the Annual Incentive Plan, the potential range of payouts for achieving those goals, and the actual results as determined by the Committee were as follows:

Strategic Metrics Multiplier. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Committee sets multiple strategic metrics for the Annual Incentive Plan based on what it believes will best drive the Company’s overall strategy of engaging employees, increasing brand investment behind superior value, keeping the core healthy and growing into new categories and channels, and reducing waste. For fiscal year 2017, the Committee set 11 metrics, each with one or more

associated targets that are objectively measurable, to be evaluated in determining the Strategic Metrics Multiplier used in the Annual Incentive Plan payout.

For example, to determine whether the results of the high-performing employee engagement metric were met, the Company measured its annual engagement survey results against a benchmark of other fast-moving

consumer goods companies. To calculate the consumer value metric, the Company measured a brand’s value to consumers in terms of product, price, and brand equity, while the innovation and strategic product pipeline metric was measured against a target based on historical and

projected sales resulting from innovation. Goals related to reshaping the portfolio include mergers and acquisitions as well as organic growth. For fiscal year 2017, the 11 strategic metrics and the Company’s results were as follows:

In fiscal year 2017, the Company updated its people strategy for further alignment with our business strategy and made strong progress on all elements, including culture, succession, development, and inclusion and diversity, which contributed to continued gains in employee engagement. Strong cost savings and administrative spending partially mitigated lower gross margin, and though the Company ended the fiscal year with market share slightly down, our consumer value measure and innovation results allowed the Company to reverse a share decline. While international volume growth was below target, this was exclusively due to the economic environment in Argentina; excluding Argentina, international volume exceeded targets. Based on the Company’s performance against these strategic metrics, the Committee determined that the level of payout for the Strategic Metrics Multiplier was 100% (down from 110% for fiscal year 2016). Over the past three years, the range for the Strategic Metrics Multiplier has been 100% to 110%.

Individual Performance Multiplier. Consistent with our pay-for-performance philosophy, the annual incentive payouts initially are determined by financial results and performance against strategic metrics, multiplied by an Individual Performance Multiplier. Based on its evaluation of individual performance, the Committee reviewed and approved the Individual Performance Multiplier for each named executive officer to reflect the officer’s individual contributions in fiscal year 2017. In determining the multiplier for individual performance, the Committee carefully evaluates several performance factors against objectives established at the beginning of the year. For our CEO, the Committee conducts a detailed evaluation covering the key categories of strategy, people, operations, values and relationships, and overall performance, with specific goals within each category. To set specific targets for our CEO, the Committee uses a balanced scorecard with annual strategic priorities of financial goals, people, customer and consumer, growth, and margin, with specific metrics and targets within each strategic priority. These targets are used to measure the CEO’s performance twice

a year, with a mid-year review and a year-end evaluation. This assessment is then used to determine the appropriate individual multiplier for the fiscal year performance.

The range of Individual Performance Multipliers in 2017 was 90% to 105% based on the contributions made in the fiscal year by our named executive officers. Our CFO and COO received Individual Performance Multipliers of 105%, primarily for their contributions in delivering above-target performance on financial and operational goals, including sales, EPS, cost savings, cash flow, and capital management while maintaining record-high employee engagement, meeting diversity goals, and reducing turnover. Our former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer – Household, Lifestyle and Core Global Functions received an Individual Performance Multiplier of 90%, based on his contributions during fiscal year 2017 and the results of the businesses he oversaw. The remaining non-CEO named executive officers received Individual Performance Multipliers of 100%. The Committee reviewed the results for our CEO and determined his Individual Performance Multiplier was 110%, based on his continued strong performance, including progress on the Company’s 2020 Strategy, delivering solid financial results and overall operational results for fiscal year 2017 that exceeded expectations, and continuing to shape a highly successful senior management team.

Final Individual Annual Incentive Plan Payouts. In accordance with the formula described above, the final annual incentive payouts to our named executive officers in fiscal year 2017, excluding our CEO, ranged from $295,150 to $522,650, and from 96% to 101% of the named executive officers’ Target Awards (excluding Mr. Vlahos’ payout, which was pro-rated for his partial year of service). Mr. Dorer’s annual incentive payout was $1,569,480. This award was 106% of his Target Award and is composed of a Financial Performance Multiplier of 96%, a Strategic Metrics Multiplier of 100%, and an Individual Performance Multiplier of 110%. These payouts are also reflected in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation column of the Summary Compensation Table.

Changes to the Annual Incentive Program for Fiscal Year 2018. As part of its 2017 review of the Company’s compensation plan design, the Committee approved new metrics for the Financial Performance Multiplier for the annual incentive plan. Beginning in fiscal

year 2018, the economic profit metric (in fiscal year 2017, weighted as 50% of the multiplier) is replaced by net earnings from continuing operations (weighted 30%) and gross margin (weighted 20%):

These revisions are intended to eliminate performance metric redundancy between our annual incentive and long-term incentive plans, where the economic profit metric remains the sole performance goal, enhance the line of sight between earned cash compensation and metrics that our broader management team can directly influence, and reinforce the importance of both net earnings and gross margin in driving sustainable value creation over time. Economic profit remains a key metric for the Company, but the Committee determined that the introduction of net earnings and gross margin was preferable in the annual incentive plan after considering investor feedback regarding a preference not to use the same metric in both short- and long-term plans, evaluating the metrics most commonly used by our peers in their short-term incentive plans, the suitability of various metrics in the short term versus the long term, and the focus on business fundamentals. In replacing the economic profit metric with net earnings and gross margin in the annual incentive, the Committee considered the attributes of these various metrics: economic profit is the after-tax profit the Company generates after paying for assets used to run the business (or capital charge), while net earnings from continuing operations is similar to economic profit but does not include a capital charge. Because the capital charge is more difficult to influence on an annual basis, the Committee determined that economic profit better aligns with long-term incentives, and net earnings to short-term incentives. Additionally, gross margin is a core element of profitable growth and a key metric for our investors, and the Committee believes that adding gross margin as a metric for the annual incentive will help ensure that employees are focused on improving the Company’s profitability and ability to fund investments for future growth.

The Committee also removed the Strategic Metrics Multiplier as a separate multiplier that applies equally to all executive officers. Commencing in fiscal year 2018, the relevant strategic metrics will be incorporated into the individual multipliers for each executive officer, thereby resulting in a simpler annual incentive calculation that continues to reflect performance measured against key strategic objectives and individual contributions. The overall balanced scorecard with annual strategic priorities of financial goals, and other targets related to people, customer and consumer, growth, and margin targets as described above will continue to be evaluated by the Committee and Board, and used to measure the CEO’s performance as part of the CEO’s

individual multiplier. Each of these changes will be effective beginning with the annual incentive payout in fiscal year 2018.

Long-Term Incentives. Each year, we provide long-term incentive compensation to our named executive officers. For the past several years, these awards have been made in the form of performance shares and stock options. We believe these forms of compensation align Company performance and executive officer compensation with the interests of our stockholders. These incentive awards also support the achievement of our long-term corporate financial goals.

We use time-based restricted stock for non-executive officer employees and occasionally for special purposes for executive officers, such as in connection with a promotion or as a replacement for compensation forfeited by an externally recruited executive at a prior employer.

The Committee annually reviews the costs of, and potential stockholder dilution attributable to, our long-term incentive program to ensure that the overall program is financially efficient and in line with that of our compensation peer group. The Committee also seeks to calibrate the long-term incentive program design to appropriately drive performance in line with that of the compensation peer group. In determining the total value of the long-term incentive opportunity for each named executive officer, the Committee reviews the compensation peer group data presented by both management and the independent compensation consultant on a role-by-role basis and considers recommendations by our CEO for the other named executive officers.

The Committee’s goal is to target long-term incentive awards in amounts that are generally competitive with the median of the compensation peer group. Actual long-term incentive award target levels for individual named executive officers may vary from the median based on a variety of factors, such as the named executive officer’s sustained performance, individual experience, critical nature of his or her role, and expected future contributions. Like the annual incentive awards, actual payouts under the long-term incentive awards will vary from the target based on how the Company performs against pre-established targets. The value of payouts will also vary based on changes in the market price of our Common Stock.

The Committee determined that our named executive officers would receive 50% of the value of their total annual long-term incentive award granted in fiscal year 2017 in performance shares and 50% in stock options. The Committee believes this mix of equity awards supports several important objectives, including compensating named executive officers for achievement of long-term goals tied to our business strategy, rewarding named executive officers for sustained increases in the price of our Common Stock, enhancing retention by mitigating the impact of price fluctuations of our Common Stock in the overall long-term incentive value, and ensuring that the overall cost of the program is aligned with the compensation realized by the named executive officers and the performance delivered to stockholders. The Committee does not consider the amount of outstanding performance shares, stock options, and restricted stock currently held by a named executive officer when making annual awards of performance shares and stock options because such amounts represent compensation attributable to prior years.

Long-Term Incentive Award. The long-term incentive awards granted to our named executive officers for fiscal year 2017 were made in September 2016. The Committee considered factors such as the executive’s role, level of experience, and sustained performance, as well as the compensation peer group market data, in determining each named executive officer’s long-term incentive award. For fiscal year 2017, the annual long-term incentives for our named executive officers, excluding our CEO, ranged in value from $525,000 to $1,400,000. Mr. Dorer received a long-term incentive award valued at $4,750,000. The long-term incentives awarded to our named executive officers in fiscal year 2017 are listed in the Stock Awards and Option Awards columns of the Summary Compensation Table.

Performance Shares. Performance shares are grants of restricted stock units that pay out after a three-year performance period only if the Company meets pre-established financial performance goals, which are described below. We believe that performance shares align the interests of our named executive officers with the interests of our stockholders because the number of shares earned and the shares’ potential value are tied to the achievement of performance targets. The performance target for the awards granted in September 2016 is a cumulative EP target informed by our three-year financial long-range plan and the budget developed by management, which is reviewed and approved by the Board. In setting the performance targets for the performance shares, the Committee reviews the budget and long-range plan and seeks to appropriately align the performance goals with the objectives of the Annual Incentive Plan, so that the overall compensation design does not encourage participants to take unnecessary or excessive risk or actions that are inconsistent with the Company’s short- and long-term

strategic and financial objectives. The Committee believes its use of cumulative EP as a metric provides rigor and an ability to align performance with pay over the three-year performance period.

The payout of the performance share awards granted in September 2016 is subject solely to the Company’s achievement of a cumulative EP target during the performance period of July 2016 through June 2019. The percentage range for payouts is from 0%, if the minimum cumulative EP target is not met, to a maximum of 150% of the target number of shares, with a payout of 25% of the target number of shares when the minimum cumulative EP target is attained.

For the grant made in September 2014, which was based on a performance period of July 2014 through June 2017 and paid out in August 2017, the Committee established cumulative EP targets and set various payout levels tied to cumulative EP for the performance period. For the September 2014 grant, the cumulative EP target was set so a payout of 100% would be made if the Company achieved EP growth of approximately 4% per year during the performance period. The Committee believes this metric directly supports the Company’s corporate strategy and long-term financial goals and correlates to stock price performance.

In August 2017, the Committee certified the results of the September 2014 grant for the 2014-2017 performance period. The adjusted financial target for the grant was a cumulative EP of $1,342 million over the three-year performance period for a 100% payout. The cumulative EP target was adjusted in accordance with the grant agreements for the impact of the adoption of a change to the accounting standards for share-based payments under ASU 2016-09, as well as for the acquisition of RenewLife in May 2016. The Company’s actual cumulative EP was well above the payout maximum of $1,392 million, resulting in the Committee certifying a payout of 150%. This payout supports the Company’s belief in pay for performance over the long term.

Stock Options. Stock options align the interests of our named executive officers with those of our stockholders because the options only have value if the price of the Company’s stock increases after the stock options are granted. Stock options vest in 25% increments over a four-year period (beginning one year from the date of grant) and expire 10 years from the date of grant. In fiscal year 2017, the Committee awarded stock options to our named executive officers as part of our annual long-term incentive plan. The exercise price for the stock options was equal to the closing price of our Common Stock on the date of grant. Information on all stock option grants is shown in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table.

Changes to the Long-Term Incentive Program for Fiscal Year 2018. As part of its 2017 compensation plan design review, the Committee changed the measurement of EP performance from a three-year cumulative dollar amount to a three-year annual growth rate. In addition, the Committee changed the potential payout range from 0% to 150% of target with a 25% payout for threshold performance (with a zero payout below threshold) to a range of 0% to 200% of target with a 50% payout threshold. In making these changes, the Committee considered a number of factors, including practices at other comparable companies, the difficulty in setting a three-year cumulative dollar-denominated target in a rapidly evolving and volatile global economic environment, feedback from investors, and talent retention considerations. With regard to the change from a dollar-denominated cumulative EP target to a target growth rate over three years, the Committee specifically considered the volatility of year-over-year results and the potential for a single good or bad year to have a disproportionate impact on a three-year payout opportunity. These changes became effective beginning with the performance share awards granted in September 2017.

Retirement Plans

Our named executive officers participate in the same tax-qualified retirement benefit programs available to all other United States-based salaried and non-collectively bargained hourly employees. The Company’s retirement plans are designed to provide replacement income upon retirement and to be competitive with programs offered by our peers.

In addition, because the IRC limits the amount of benefits that can be contributed to and paid from a tax-qualified retirement plan, the Company also provides our executive officers, including our named executive officers, with additional retirement benefits intended to restore amounts that would otherwise be payable under the Company’s tax-qualified retirement plans if the IRC did not have limits on includable compensation and maximum benefits. We call these plans “restoration plans” because they restore total executive retirement benefits to the same percentage level provided to our salaried employees who are not limited by IRC restrictions.

A brief description of each of our retirement programs is set forth below. Each of our named executive officers participates in these retirement programs with the exception of the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan.

The Clorox Company Pension Plan. The Clorox Company Pension Plan (the Pension Plan) is a cash balance pension plan that was frozen effective July 1, 2011. This freeze did not affect the benefits previously accrued under the Pension Plan, which remain fully funded.

The Clorox Company 401(k) Plan. After the Pension Plan was frozen in July 2011, the Clorox Company 401(k) Plan (the 401(k) Plan) became the base retirement plan for the Company. The Company makes an annual fixed contribution of 6% of eligible pay and a matching contribution of up to 4% of eligible pay to employees under the 401(k) Plan.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan. Under the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the NQDC), eligible employees may voluntarily defer receipt of up to 50% of base salary and up to 100% of their annual incentive awards. In fiscal year 2017, deferred amounts could be invested in a manner that generally mirrored the funds available in the 401(k) Plan. The NQDC permits the Company to contribute amounts that exceed the IRC compensation limits in the tax-qualified plans through a 401(k) restoration provision.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan. The Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the SERP), a defined benefit plan, was closed to new participants effective April 2007 and, effective June 30, 2011, was frozen with regard to pay and offsets, while still accruing age and service credits. Benefits under the SERP have historically been calculated as an annuity based on a percentage of average compensation adjusted by age and years of service and offset by the annuity value of Company contributions to the tax-qualified retirement plans and by Social Security. Effective July 1, 2011, the SERP was replaced by the Executive Retirement Plan (the ERP) (described below). Moving from the SERP to the ERP created a defined contribution structure that is more closely aligned with the benefits provided by the Company’s compensation peer group. As of July 1, 2017, only three of our named executive officers are still eligible for the SERP.

Executive Retirement Plan. Our executive officers (including named executive officers) participate in the ERP. Under the ERP, the Company makes an annual contribution of 5% of an eligible participant’s base salary and annual incentive award into the plan.

Further details about the provisions of the Pension Plan, NQDC, SERP, and ERP are provided in the Overview of Pension Benefits and the Overview of the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans sections below.

Post-Termination Compensation

The Company has a severance plan (the Severance Plan) that provides our named executive officers with post-termination payments if the named executive officers’ employment is terminated by the Company other than for cause. These payments are intended to provide a measure of financial security following the loss of employment, which

we believe is important to attract and retain executives. The severance benefits are designed to be competitive with the compensation peer group and external market practices.

The Company also has an Executive Change in Control Severance Plan (the CIC Plan), which provides severance benefits to certain eligible executives of the Company, including all of the Company’s named executive officers, if their employment with the Company is involuntarily terminated in connection with a change in control of the Company. In addition to helping mitigate the financial impact associated with termination after a change in control, these benefits further align the interests of our executive officers with the interests of our stockholders by providing incentives for retention, for business continuity purposes. Under the CIC Plan, a named executive officer is eligible for change in control severance benefits if his or her employment is terminated in connection with a change in control, either by the Company without cause or by the named executive officer for good reason. See the section entitled Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control for additional information.

Mr. Vlahos retired from the Company as of March 31, 2017. With his retirement, he was eligible to receive accelerated vesting for stock options held over a year, a pro-rata share of performance units held over a year (subject to Company performance) and a pro-rata bonus payout related to his partial year of service. Equity granted in fiscal 2017 was forfeited by Mr. Vlahos upon retirement, and he was not eligible for subsidized retiree health care.

Perquisites

We provide our named executive officers with other limited benefits we believe are competitive with the compensation peer group and consistent with the Company’s overall executive compensation program. These benefits allow our named executive officers to proactively manage their health, work more efficiently, and, in the case of the financial planning program, help them optimize the value received from our compensation and benefits programs. These perquisites are a Company car or car allowance, paid parking at the Company’s headquarters, an annual executive physical exam, reimbursement for health club membership, and financial planning services.

Other Executive Compensation Policies and Practices

Tally Sheets. To help ensure that our executive compensation design is aligned with our overall compensation philosophy of pay for performance and that total compensation levels are appropriate, the Committee annually reviews compensation tally sheets for each of our named executive officers. These tally sheets outline current

target total compensation (including the compensation elements described above), the potential wealth creation of long-term incentive awards granted to our officers under various potential stock prices, and the potential value of payouts under various termination scenarios. As such, these tally sheets help provide the Committee with a comprehensive understanding of all elements of the Company’s compensation program and enable the Committee to consider changes to the Company’s compensation program, arrangements, and plans in light of best practices and emerging trends. The Committee may consider the information presented in the tally sheets in determining future compensation.

Results of 2016 Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation. At our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on November 16, 2016, we asked our stockholders to approve, on an advisory basis, our fiscal year 2016 compensation awarded to our named executive officers, commonly referred to as a “say-on-pay” vote. Our stockholders overwhelmingly approved the compensation to our named executive officers, with approximately 93% of votes cast in favor of our proposal. We value this positive endorsement by our stockholders of our 2016 executive compensation policies and believe that the outcome signals our stockholders’ support of our compensation program. We continued our general approach to compensation for fiscal year 2017, specifically our pay-for-performance philosophy and our efforts to attract, retain, and motivate our named executive officers, taking into account the say-on-pay results as well as specific feedback from our stockholders. We value the opinions of our stockholders and will continue to consider the results from this year’s and future advisory votes on executive compensation, as well as feedback received throughout the year, when making compensation decisions for our named executive officers.

Stock Award Granting Practices. The Company awards annual long-term incentive grants each September at a regularly scheduled Committee meeting, which typically occurs during the third week of the month, or about six weeks after the Company has publicly reported its annual earnings. The meeting date is the effective grant date for the awards, and the exercise/grant price is equal to the closing price of our Common Stock on that date.

The Committee may also make occasional grants of stock options and other equity-based awards at other times to recognize,retain,or recruit executive officers. The Committee approved one additional grant to a named executive officer in fiscal year 2017. Ms. Willoughby was granted $300,000 in restricted stock units upon the retirement of Mr. Vlahos from the Company and the consolidation of the two co-Chief Operating Officer roles into one role held by Ms. Willoughby effective April 3, 2017.

Executive Stock Ownership Guidelines. To maintain alignment of the interests of the Company’s executive officers and our stockholders, all executive officers, including the named executive officers, are expected to build and maintain a significant level of direct stock ownership. Ownership levels can be achieved over time in a variety of ways, such as by retaining stock received upon the exercise of stock options or the vesting of stock awards or by purchasing stock in the open market. At a minimum, executive officers are expected to establish and maintain direct ownership of Common Stock having a value, based on the current market price of the stock, equal to a multiple of each executive officer’s annual base salary. The current minimum ownership guidelines are as follows:

Ownership levels are based on shares of Common Stock owned by the named executive officer or held pursuant to Company plans, including performance shares that have vested and been deferred for settlement. Unexercised stock options and shares that have not vested due to time or performance restrictions are excluded from the ownership calculations.

As of the date of this proxy statement, all of our named executive officers except our CEO have met the required ownership levels. Mr. Dorer became subject to a higher threshold with his promotion to CEO in fiscal year 2015, when his ownership threshold increased from 3 times annual base salary to 6 times annual base salary required for the CEO.

Retention Ratios. Executive officers, including our named executive officers, are required to retain a certain percentage of shares obtained upon either the exercise of stock options or the release of restrictions on performance shares and restricted stock, after satisfying applicable taxes. Our CEO is expected to retain 75% of shares acquired (after taxes) until the minimum ownership level is met. After attaining the minimum ownership level, our CEO must retain 50% of any additional shares acquired (after taxes) until retirement or termination. Other executive officers must retain 75% of shares acquired (after taxes) until the minimum ownership levels are met and thereafter must retain 25% of shares acquired (after taxes) for one year after receipt.

Securities Trading Policy; Prohibition on Hedging and Pledging. To ensure alignment of the interests of our stockholders and executive officers, including our named executive officers, the Company’s Insider Trading Policy does not permit executive officers to engage in short-term

or speculative transactions or derivative transactions involving the Company’s stock and includes prohibitions on options trading, hedging, or pledging the Company’s stock as collateral. Trading is permitted only during announced trading periods or in accordance with a previously established trading plan that meets SEC requirements. At all times, including during announced trading periods, executive officers are required to obtain preclearance from the Company’s General Counsel or Corporate Secretary prior to entering into any transactions in Company securities, unless those sales occur in accordance with a previously established trading plan that meets SEC requirements.

Clawback Provisions. Under our Annual Incentive Plan and long-term incentive plan, in the event of a restatement of financial results to correct a material error or other factors as described in the long-term incentive plan, the Committee is authorized to reduce or recoup an executive officer’s award, as applicable, to the extent that the Committee determines such executive officer’s fraud or intentional misconduct was a significant contributing factor to the need for a restatement.

Tax Deductibility Limits on Executive Compensation. Section 162(m) limits the tax deductibility of compensation paid to our CEO and the three other most highly compensated named executive officers employed at the end of the year (other than the CFO) to $1 million per year, unless such amounts are determined to be performance-based compensation. Our policy with respect to Section 162(m) seeks to balance the interests of the Company in maintaining flexible incentive plans against the possible loss of a tax deduction when taxable compensation for any of the executive officers subject to Section 162(m) exceeds $1 million per year. The Annual Incentive Plan and long-term incentive plan are designed to provide the Committee with the ability to decide whether or not to make performance-based compensation awards that are intended to meet the requirements of Section 162(m). The Committee generally seeks to satisfy the requirements necessary to allow the compensation of its executives to be deductible under Section 162(m) of the IRC, but retains the discretion and may also approve compensation that is not deductible under Section 162(m). The rules and regulations promulgated under Section 162(m) are complex and subject to change from time to time, sometimes with retroactive effect. There can be no guarantee, therefore, that amounts potentially subject to the Section 162(m) limitations will be treated by the Internal Revenue Service as “qualified performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) and/or deductible by the Company.