Conflict Minerals Report of Plexus Corp.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 13p-1 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 2024

Introduction

This Conflict Minerals Report (the “Report”) of Plexus Corp. (“Plexus,” the “Company,” “we,”  “us,” or “our”) has been prepared by management for calendar year 2024 under the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”). The term “conflict mineral” is defined as (A) columbite tantalite (coltan), cassiterite, gold, wolframite or their derivatives, which are limited to tantalum,  tin and tungsten; or (B) any other mineral or its derivatives determined by the Secretary of State  to be financing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the “DRC”) or an adjoining  country (collectively, the “Covered Countries”). Numerous terms in this Report are defined in  Rule 13p-1 of the Act and Form SD (collectively, the “Conflict Minerals Rule”) and the reader is  referred to those sources, and also to Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Release No.  34-67716 (August 22, 2012) under the Act for such definitions. For the purpose of this report,  tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold will collectively be referred to as the 3TGs.  

In accordance with the Conflict Minerals Rule, we undertook efforts to determine whether the  3TGs necessary to the functionality or production of products that we manufacture, or contract to  manufacture, were sourced from the Covered Countries, or are from recycled or scrap sources.  We designed our due diligence efforts to conform, in all material respects, with the framework  presented by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (the “OECD”) in the  publication Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict Affected and High-Risk Areas and related supplements for each of the conflict minerals  (collectively, the “OECD Guidance”). 

The statements below are based on the due diligence activities performed to date and on the  information available at the time of this filing. Factors that could affect the accuracy of these  statements include, but are not limited to, incomplete supplier data or a lack of available smelter  data, errors or omissions by suppliers or smelters, evolving confirmation of smelters, incomplete  information from industry or other third-party sources, and other issues.

About Plexus

At Plexus, we help create the products that build a better world. With a vision rooted in the well being and inclusive engagement of our team members, customers and communities – People are  the heart of who we are and what we do. It’s our Values that unite us as Plexus and guide us in  everything we do.  

By embracing an innovative culture of excellence, we pride ourselves on designing,  manufacturing and servicing some of the world’s most transformative products. From life-saving  medical devices to mission-critical aerospace and defense products to industrial automation  systems and semiconductor capital equipment, we are proud to partner with our customers to  bring their most complex ideas to market.  

We provide these solutions to market-leading as well as disruptive global companies in the  Healthcare/Life Sciences, Industrial and Aerospace/Defense sectors. Our solutions are supported  across our 28 facilities in the Americas (“AMER”), Asia-Pacific (“APAC”) and Europe, Middle  East and Africa (“EMEA”) regions.

Description of Products

We do not sell “Plexus-branded” products. We provide services for original equipment  manufacturers (“OEMs”) with a focus on serving markets consisting of highly complex products  and demanding regulatory environments characterized by unique flexibility, technology, quality  and regulatory requirements. The products falling within the scope of this Report include the  assemblies and products that we manufactured or contracted to manufacture for customers in the  aforementioned market sectors during calendar year 2024. As an Electronic Manufacturing  Services (EMS) company, it’s highly likely that most products assembled contain tin, tungsten,  tantalum and/or gold. Although we did not find any evidence that the 3TGs contained in these  assemblies or products directly or indirectly benefited armed groups in the Covered Countries,  we were unable to conclude that any of these assemblies and products were definitively “DRC  conflict free”.

Conflict Minerals Policy

Our commitment to ethical sourcing is driving a focus on continuous improvement in our supply  chain transparency efforts. We have a Conflict Minerals Policy Statement (the “Conflict  Minerals Policy”), which is posted on our website at www.plexus.com.

Reasonable Country of Origin Inquiry (“RCOI”)

We conducted a good faith RCOI regarding the 3TGs in the materials, components and finished  goods supplied to us. We utilized a third-party service provider (the “Provider”) to assist in  supplier outreach and our due diligence procedures. 

We reviewed the assemblies and products that we manufactured or contracted to manufacture for  customers during calendar year 2024 and identified suppliers that supply components or  products, or engage in manufacturing activities, that are likely to contain one or more of the  3TGs. We removed from the list of suppliers all service providers, indirect materials suppliers,  distributors and inactive suppliers that did not supply goods to us.  

The Provider conducted the supplier survey portion of the RCOI. Suppliers received a  communication describing the compliance requirements and requesting information on the 3TGs  in their products and the smelters or refiners of those minerals. The Provider, on our behalf,  utilized version 6.4 of the Responsible Mineral Initiative’s (the “RMI”) Conflict Minerals  Reporting Template (“CMRT”). The Provider, on our behalf, engaged 2,161 suppliers  determined to be in scope for purposes of our RCOI efforts to collect information regarding the  presence and sourcing of 3TGs in the products supplied to us.  

The Provider followed up with all unresponsive suppliers through a defined process. The  Provider utilized both automated and direct email communications as well as phone calls to non responsive suppliers during the escalation phases. Escalation emails for nonresponsive suppliers  were also sent directly by our Supply Chain leadership. The communications offered assistance  and further information to suppliers about the requirements of the Conflict Minerals Rule and our  compliance program. A minimum of eight attempts were made in an effort to contact  unresponsive suppliers. Additionally, our program continues to include automated data  validation on all submitted CMRTs. Suppliers were contacted to address incomplete data and  invalid submissions and they were encouraged to re-submit with a valid CMRT. The goal of this  process is to increase the accuracy of submissions and identify any contradictory answers in the  CMRT. The Provider monitored and tracked all invalid or incomplete supplier submissions. 

Although we requested information at a product level, the majority of suppliers provided CMRT  responses at a company or division level that included information on all products sold by the  supplier to its customers, even though we may have purchased only a limited subset of  components or products from the supplier. Therefore, the information provided by these  suppliers was not necessarily limited to smelters or refiners that were part of our direct supply  chain.

Based on the responses gathered during our RCOI, we were unable to determine that the 3TGs  necessary to the functionality or production of our products did not originate in the Covered  Countries. As a result, and in accordance with the Conflict Minerals Rule, we undertook the due  diligence measures described below on the source and chain of custody of the conflict minerals  in our supply chain. 

Design of Due Diligence

As previously disclosed, our due diligence measures were designed to be in conformance, in all  material respects, with the internationally recognized due diligence framework as set forth in the  OECD Guidance.  

The design of our due diligence measures considered the OECD’s recommendations for  “downstream” actors with no direct relationships with smelters or refiners. “Downstream” refers  to the supply chain from smelters or refiners to retailers and manufacturers, whereas “upstream”  refers to the supply chain from the mines to the smelters or refiners. 

We do not have a direct relationship with any smelters or refiners and therefore, do not perform  direct audits of the due diligence practices of these entities. We instead rely on internationally recognized validation schemes that facilitate independent third-party audits of smelters or  refiners and validate that smelters or refiners have met the requirements of the OECD Guidance,  such as the RMI Responsible Minerals Assurance Process (“RMAP”). We support this program  through membership and participation in the RMI as an active member of the Responsible  Business Alliance (“RBA”) since 2014. This engagement and the contributions made have  helped develop standards, best practices, and tools that benefit all companies working to end the  link between 3TGs and conflict in the DRC.

Due Diligence Measures Performed

Our overall conflict minerals program is based on the five-step framework of the OECD Guidance. We followed the five-step framework established by the OECD Guidance while performing our due diligence measures for calendar year 2024, which consisted of the following steps:

Step 1: Maintain strong company management systems
Step 2: Identify and assess risks in the supply chain
Step 3: Design and implement a strategy to respond to identified risks
Step 4: Carry out independent third-party audit of smelters’ and refiners’ due diligence practices when required
Step 5: Report annually on supply chain due diligence

Step 1: Maintain strong company management systems

Internal Team:

We have established an internal management system reporting through the Corporate  Compliance Officer designed to assist in complying with the Conflict Minerals Rule. As  previously discussed, we also retained the services of the Provider to assist with our efforts.  Through use of the Provider’s web-based reporting tool we are able to collect and store supplier  data and CMRTs, communicate with suppliers, and monitor Conflict Minerals sourcing risks in  our supply chain. The use of this tool and our other management systems has provided an  opportunity for us to assist our suppliers in understanding our expectations and requirements in  an effort to increase the rate and accuracy of responses received from our suppliers

Control Systems:

Our Conflict Minerals Policy outlines the expectation that all of our suppliers abide by the  requirements of our Supplier Code of Conduct, which prohibits human rights abuses and  unethical practices. The Conflict Minerals Policy also requires all suppliers to comply with  applicable legal standards and requirements and provide us with completed conflict minerals  declarations annually. 

We periodically review our Conflict Minerals Policy and will make updates as necessary and  appropriate. If a supplier fails to comply with our Conflict Minerals Policy, we may reconsider  our willingness to continue to partner with that supplier.

Supplier Engagement:

In an effort to strengthen engagement with suppliers, we utilized version 6.4 of the CMRT and  the Provider’s web-based reporting tool for collecting CMRTs from our supplier base. The use of  these tools and our other engagement efforts, have allowed us to assist our suppliers in  understanding our expectations. 

We continue to put a strong emphasis on supplier education and training. To accomplish this, we  utilized our Provider’s learning management system and provided all in-scope suppliers access to  their conflict minerals training material and courses. All suppliers are encouraged to complete all modules within this course. Supplier education is also done through one-on-one interaction with  our Provider’s supplier teams. 

During the 2024 reporting period we continued to emphasize the need for product level  responses from suppliers by requesting CMRTs that only include the parts that are sold to us. In  particular, this was requested for suppliers who identified risks or gaps in their company level  CMRT.

Company Level Grievance Mechanism:

As an additional means of communication regarding conflict minerals, our employees and other  stakeholders can escalate concerns to our Corporate Compliance Officer and executive  management by use of our Ethics Hotline, as outlined in our Code of Conduct and Business  Ethics, available on our website at www.plexus.com. Reporters can remain anonymous if  desired.

Document Retention:

We are retaining supporting documentation regarding our conflict minerals program for calendar  year 2024 in accordance with our record retention guidelines.

Step 2: Identify and assess risks in the supply chain

We performed multiple steps in an effort to ensure that risks were identified and assessed during  the execution of our conflict minerals program. This included risks associated with smelters or  refiners, supplier responses, and with suppliers’ internal policies and programs. 

The Provider verified whether the metals processors identified by each supplier on its CMRT are  actually smelters, refiners, or recyclers of conflict minerals (“legitimate smelters or refiners”) by  comparing the facilities reported by suppliers to the RMI’s most current Standard Smelter List,  the data gathered by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and by conducting its own independent  research. The Provider also researched and reviewed mine information for all verified smelters or  refiners in an effort to determine the country of origin of the minerals processed. Through this  effort, we were able to identify 100% of the country of origin information for the smelters or  refiners. 

The Provider attempted to match each identified smelter or refiner to available lists of smelters  and refiners that were identified as “conformant” by internationally-recognized validation  schemes, such as the RMAP. If a smelter or refiner was not certified by an internationally recognized scheme, the Provider attempted to contact the entity to gather more information about its sourcing practices. In addition, the Provider also performed research using publicly available  sources of information regarding the smelter’s or refiner’s sourcing practices. The conformant  status of each legitimate smelter or refiner is continuously monitored to ensure that any changes  in status or risk are accounted for. 

We sought to understand the risk levels associated with conflict minerals in the supply chain. A  smelter’s or refiner’s overall risk is based on various factors, including whether the smelter has  been identified as “valid” and has an associated Smelter Identification Number (under the RMI,  this is known as a CID), as well as the smelter’s geographic location, including its proximity to  the Covered Countries and any credible evidence of unethical or conflict sourcing. 

The Provider assessed supplier risk based on its determination of the likelihood that a supplier  provided conflict minerals to us that may have originated from sources that are not conflict free,  considering the smelters or refiners declared by that supplier on its CMRT. 

Additionally, we evaluated suppliers based on the strength of their conflict minerals programs.  The criteria used to evaluate the strength of a supplier’s program consisted of the following  questions on the CMRT:

• Have you established a conflict minerals sourcing policy?
• Have you implemented due diligence measures for conflict-free sourcing?
• Do you review due diligence information received from your suppliers against your company’s expectations?
• Does your review process include corrective action management?

Tracing materials back to their mine of origin is a complex aspect of responsible sourcing in the  supply chain. We have determined that seeking information about conflict minerals smelters and  refiners in the supply chain represents the most reasonable effort we can make to determine the  mines or locations of origin of the conflict minerals in the supply chain. This was done by  adopting the methodology outlined by the OECD Guidance and by requiring suppliers to  conform with the same standards to meet the OECD Guidance, and report to us using the CMRT.  Through this process, we believe we have made reasonable efforts to determine the mines or  locations of origin of the conflict minerals in our supply chain.

Step 3: Design and implement a strategy to respond to identified risks

Following the assessment of supplier risk discussed above, we followed up with suppliers whom  we had reason to believe may be sourcing conflict minerals originating from a smelter or refiner  in the Covered Countries. We also followed up with any supplier that did not submit a valid response to the CMRT and encouraged them to provide complete and accurate data via the  CMRT. 

As stated in our Conflict Minerals Policy, we require all in-scope suppliers to provide completed  conflict minerals declarations using the CMRT. We may reconsider our willingness to partner  with suppliers that fail to comply with our Conflict Minerals Policy. 

As part of our risk management plan under the OECD Guidance, any high-risk smelter facilities  reported on a CMRT by one of the suppliers surveyed, risk mitigation activities were initiated.  Through the Provider, submissions that include any high-risk smelter facilities immediately  received instructions from us asking the supplier to take their own risk mitigation actions. The  mitigation actions may include the submission of a product specific CMRT to better identify the  connection to products that they supply to us, escalating up to the removal of these smelters from  their supply chain.  

During the 2024 reporting year, we conducted a targeted campaign to all suppliers who indicated  one or more smelters of concern in an effort to educate them on the level of risk and suggested  next steps. Various training materials, including webinars, were offered to suppliers for  additional smelter education and awareness. 

As per the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, risk mitigation will depend on the supplier’s specific  context. Suppliers are given clear performance objectives within reasonable timeframes with the  ultimate goal of progressive elimination of these risks from the supply chain. Furthermore,  suppliers are guided to our Provider’s learning management system to engage in educational  materials on mitigating the risk of smelters or refiners in the supply chain.

Step 4: Carry out independent third-party audit of smelter/refiner due diligence practices

We rely on multi-stakeholder initiatives that provide verification processes for smelters or  refiners who provide conflict minerals to companies in its supply chain. We, as a purchaser of  component parts, are many steps removed from the mining of conflict minerals. We do not  purchase raw ore or unrefined conflict minerals and we do not conduct purchasing activities  directly in the Covered Countries. In addition, we do not perform or direct audits of the smelters  or refiners listed by our suppliers as being potentially a part of our supply chain. 

Through our membership with the RMI, we encourage smelters or refiners to participate in the  RMAP.

The Provider also directly contacts smelters and refiners that are not currently enrolled in the  RMAP to encourage their participation and gather information regarding each facility’s sourcing  practices on behalf of its compliance partners. We are a signatory of this communication in  accordance with the requirements of downstream companies detailed in the OECD Guidance.

Step 5: Report annually on supply chain due diligence

This Report (and the related Form SD) was filed with the SEC and is available on the Plexus website at www.plexus.com.

Due Diligence Results

Using the processes outlined above, we surveyed the in-scope suppliers for calendar year 2024  and reviewed the responses received. As previously noted, we, along with the Provider, followed  up with suppliers who did not respond or who provided incomplete responses, or whose  responses contained inconsistencies, in an effort to secure valid and complete responses. We  received CMRTs representing over 96% of our in-scope parts for the 2024 reporting year.  

As a result of our due diligence measures in 2024, we have identified 374 smelters and refiners  as potentially processing the 3TGs provided by its suppliers. Of the 374 smelters and refiners,  233 were identified as RMI conformant, with an additional 11 pursuing their RMI certification.  There were a total of 32 smelters not currently enrolled in the RMAP. Each of those 32 smelters  received a letter from us to educate them on the RMI process as well as encouraging them to join  the RMAP and become a RMI conformant facility. Additionally, Plexus was able to obtain  country of origin data for 100% of the identified smelters. 

As previously disclosed, we do not do business directly with any of the smelters or refiners  identified. The list was generated based on information received from our suppliers. We continue  to conduct independent research on smelters and refiners and will work with suppliers  throughout our supply chain to help improve and refine reported information in future years. We  will continue to communicate expectations and information requirements to our direct suppliers.  We will continue to make inquiries to direct suppliers and undertake additional risk assessments  when potentially relevant changes in facts or circumstances are identified. 

Although we requested information at a product level, as previously disclosed, a majority of  suppliers returned information at a company or division level, not at a product level. Therefore,  the information provided was not necessarily limited to smelters or refiners confirmed to be in  our supply chain and we are unable to determine whether any of these smelters are financing conflict in the Covered Countries. We will continue to work with our suppliers to determine if  these smelters or refiners can be directly linked to the actual parts or products sold to us. Due to  the submission of company level responses, we cannot make this determination at this time. 

In addition, various supplier responses were incomplete, as all supply chain participants continue  to map their upstream supply chains. As a result, we are unable to definitively validate whether  facilities actually processed the minerals contained in our products or whether all upstream  supply chain participants were identified.

Steps to Continuously Improve Due Diligence

In addition to the initiatives outlined above, we plan to take the following steps during the next compliance period to continue to improve the due diligence conducted and to further mitigate the risk that these conflict minerals benefit armed groups:

• Continue to actively participate in and support industry trade groups to help improve  communication throughout the supply chain. We are an active member of the RBA, and  will continue our membership activity through the coming year. 
• Continue to leverage our customer partnerships to proactively guide suppliers on our  consistent expectations for responsible sourcing. 
• Continue to support supplier education and training and integrate Conflict Minerals  related expectations into new supplier agreements and our existing supplier performance  evaluations. 
• Evaluate the suppliers and parts surveyed during this year’s Conflict Minerals outreach to  ensure accurate data and scoping year-over-year, eliminating out-of-scope suppliers and  validating our supplier contact information to increase responsiveness. 
• Evaluate suppliers that do not comply with our Conflict Minerals Policy or have not  made improvements to their conflict minerals programs, offer an educational outreach  program through our Provider, and further communicate our expectation that they make  efforts to comply with our Conflict Minerals Policy.  
• Continue to evaluate the suppliers that have provided smelters or refiners on the  previously mentioned high risk smelters list and require smelter diligence training for  those suppliers. This training is specifically designed for those suppliers that have  reported high risk smelters in consecutive reporting years. Its intent is to continue to  educate the suppliers on where they can find additional resources, as well as to  communicate the continued expectation that they work through their supply chains to  remove high risk smelters from their CMRTs. 

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM SD
Specialized Disclosure Report

PLEXUS CORP.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 One Plexus Way,
Neenah, Wisconsin 54957
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
 
Angelo M. Ninivaggi
Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer,
General Counsel and Secretary
(920) 969-6000
(Name and telephone number, including area code, of the person to contact in connection with this report.)

Check the appropriate box to indicate the rule pursuant to which this form is being filed, and provide the period to which the information in this form applies:

[X]       Rule 13p-1 under the Securities Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13p-1) for the reporting period from January 1 to December 31, 2024.

Section 1 – Conflict Minerals Disclosure

Item 1.01 Conflict Minerals Disclosure and Report

Conflict Minerals Disclosure

A copy of Plexus Corp.’s Conflict Minerals Report for the reporting period from January 1 to December 31, 2024, is provided as Exhibit 1.01 hereto and is publicly available on our website at www.plexus.com.

Item 1.02 Exhibit

See Item 3.01 of this Form.

Section 2 – Resource Extraction Issuer Disclosure

Item 2.01 Resource Extraction Issuer Disclosure and Report

Not applicable.

Section 3 – Exhibits

Item 3.01 Exhibits

Exhibit 1.01 – Conflict Minerals Report as required by Items 1.01 and 1.02 of this Form.

SIGNATURES 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this  report to be signed on its behalf by the duly authorized undersigned. 

Date: May 28, 2025 PLEXUS CORP. 

(Registrant) 

By: /s/ Angelo M. Ninivaggi  

Angelo M. Ninivaggi 

Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer,  

General Counsel and Secretary