Note 1 in 3M’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 4, 2017 (which updated 3M’s 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K) provides additional information the Company considers in determining the exchange rate used relative to its Venezuelan subsidiary as well as factors which could lead to its deconsolidation. The Company continues to monitor these circumstances. Changes in applicable exchange rates or exchange mechanisms may continue in the future. These changes could impact the rate of exchange applicable to remeasure the Company’s net monetary assets (liabilities) denominated in Venezuelan Bolivars (VEF). As of September 30, 2017, the Company had a balance ofunderlying net monetary assets denominated in VEFTurkish lira are not material to 3M.

guidance. The standard’s stated core principle is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. To achieve this core principle the ASU includes provisions within a five step model that includes identifying the contract with a customer, identifying the performance obligations in the contract, determining the transaction price, allocating the transaction priceNote 1 to the performance obligations, and recognizing revenue when (or as) an entity satisfies a performance obligation. The standard also specifies the accounting for some costs to obtain or fulfill a contract with a customer and requires expanded disclosures about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. During 2016, the FASB also issued ASU No. 2016-08, Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net); ASU No. 2016-10, Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing; ASU No. 2016-12, Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients, and ASU No. 2016-20, Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers which amend ASU No. 2014-09. These amendments include clarification of principal versus agent guidance in situations in which a revenue transaction involves a third party in providing goods or services to a customer. In such circumstances, an entity must determine whether the nature of its promise to the customer is to provide the underlying goods or services (i.e., the entity is the principal in the transaction) or to arrange for the third party to provide the underlying goods or services (i.e., the entity is the agent in the transaction). The amendments clarify, in terms of identifying performance obligations, how entities would determine whether promised goods or services are separately identifiable from other promises in a contract and, therefore, would be accounted for separately. The guidance allows entities to disregard goods or services that are immaterial in the context of a contract and provides an accounting policy election to account for shipping and handling activities as fulfillment costs rather than as additional promised services. With regard to the licensing, the amendments clarify how an entity would evaluate the nature of its promise in granting a license of intellectual property, which determines whether the entity recognizes revenue over time or at a point in time. The amendments also address implementation issues relative to transition (adding a practical expedient for contract modifications and clarifying what constitutes a completed contract when employing full or modified retrospective transition methods), collectability, noncash consideration, and the presentation of sales and other similar-type taxes (allowing entities to exclude sales-type taxes collected from transaction price). Finally, the amendments make certain technical corrections and provide additional guidance in the areas of disclosure of performance obligations, provisions for losses on certain types of contracts, scoping, and other areas. Overall, ASU No. 2014-09, as amended, provides for either full retrospective adoption or a modified retrospective adoption by which it is applied only to the most current period presented. For 3M, the ASU is effective January 1, 2018 and the Company has concluded that it will utilize the modified retrospective method of adoption. 3M continues to evaluate the standard’s impact on its consolidated results of operations and financial condition. In addition to expanded disclosures regarding revenue, the ASU could impact the timing of revenue and certain cost recognition. 3M has conducted initial analyses, executed project management relative to the process of adopting this ASU, and is finalizing detailed contract reviews to complete necessary adjustments to existing accounting policies and quantify the ASU’s effect. For most of 3M’s revenue arrangements, no significant impacts are expected as these transactions are not accounted for under industry-specific guidance that will be superseded by the ASU and generally consist of a single performance obligation to transfer promised goods or services. However, 3M engages in some arrangements for which software industry-specific guidance (which the ASU supersedes) is presently utilized. The Company has considered these arrangements in the detailed contract reviews that have been conducted. While 3M will continue to finalize its efforts relative to the adoption of ASU No. 2014-09, based on the analysis completed to date, the Company does not expect this standard to have a material impact on its consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-11, Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory, which modified previous requirements regarding measuring inventory at the lower of cost or market. Under previous standards, the market amount required consideration of replacement cost, net realizable value (NRV), and NRV less an approximately normal profit margin. The new ASU replaced market with NRV, defined as estimated selling prices in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal and transportation. This eliminated the need to determine and consider replacement cost or NRV less an approximately normal profit margin when measuring inventory. 3M adopted this standard prospectively beginning January 1, 2017. The adoption did not have a material impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement ofConsolidated Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, which revises the accounting related to (1) the classification and measurement of investments in equity

securities and (2) the presentation of certain fair value changes for financial liabilities measured at fair value. The ASU also amends certain disclosure requirements associated with the fair value of financial instruments. The new guidance requires the fair value measurement of investments in equity securities and other ownership interests in an entity, including investments in partnerships, unincorporated joint ventures and limited liability companies (collectively, equity securities) that do not result in consolidation and are not accounted for under the equity method. Entities will need to measure these investments and recognize changes in fair value in net income. Entities will no longer be able to recognize unrealized holding gains and losses on equity securities they classify under current guidance as available for sale in other comprehensive income (OCI). They also will no longer be able to use the cost method of accounting for equity securities that do not have readily determinable fair values. Instead, for these types of equity investments that do not otherwise qualify for the net asset value practical expedient, entities will be permitted to elect a practicability exception and measure the investment at cost less impairment plus or minus observable price changes (in orderly transactions). The ASU also establishes an incremental recognition and disclosure requirement related to the presentation of fair value changes of financial liabilities for which the fair value option (FVO) has been elected. Under this guidance, an entity would be required to separately present in OCI the portion of the total fair value change attributable to instrument-specific credit risk as opposed to reflecting the entire amount in earnings. For derivative liabilities for which the FVO has been elected, however, any changes in fair value attributable to instrument-specific credit risk would continue to be presented in net income, which is consistent with current guidance. For 3M, this standard is effective beginning January 1, 2018 via a cumulative-effect adjustment to beginning retained earnings, except for guidance relative to equity securities without readily determinable fair values which is applied prospectively. The Company is currently assessing this ASU’s impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition; however, 3M has historically held limited amounts of equity securities and cost method investments (less than $75 million in aggregate at September 30, 2017), and has not elected the FVO with respect to material financial liabilities.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases, replacing existing lease accounting guidance. The new standard introduces a lessee model that would require entities to recognize assets and liabilities for most leases, but recognize expenses on their income statements in a manner similar to current accounting. The ASU does not make fundamental changes to existing lessor accounting. However, it modifies what qualifies as a sales-type and direct financing lease and related accounting and aligns a number of the underlying principles with those of the new revenue standard, ASU No. 2014-09, such as evaluating how collectability should be considered and determining when profit can be recognized. The guidance eliminates existing real estate-specific provisions and requires expanded qualitative and quantitative disclosures. The standard requires modified retrospective transition by which it is applied at the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the year of adoption. For 3M, the ASU is effective January 1, 2019. Information under existing lease guidance with respect to rent expense for operating leases and the Company’s minimum lease payments for capital and operating leases with non-cancelable terms in excess of one year as of December 31, 2016 is included in Note 14Statements in 3M’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 4, 2017 (which updated 3M’s 20162021 Annual Report on Form 10-K). The Company10-K for a discussion of applicable standards issued and not yet adopted by 3M.

held the interest itself. As a result of the ASU, in certain cases, previous consolidation conclusions may change. For 3M, the standard was effective January 1, 2017 with retrospective application to January 1, 2016. 3M does not have significant involvement with entities subject to consolidation considerations impacted by VIE model factors. As a result, the adoption of this ASU did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-18, Restricted Cash, which clarified guidance on the classification and presentation of restricted cash in the statement of cash flows. Under the ASU, changes in restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents would be included along with those of cash and cash equivalents in the statement of cash flows. As a result, entities would no longer present transfers between cash/equivalents and restricted cash/equivalents in the statement of cash flows. In addition, a reconciliation between the balance sheet and the statement of cash flows would be disclosed when the balance sheet includes more than one line item for cash/equivalents and restricted cash/equivalents. The Company early adopted ASU No. 2016-18 as of January 1, 2017. Due to the immaterial use of restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents, no impact was reflected in the Company’s pre-2017 consolidated results of operations and financial condition presented.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-01, Clarifying the Definition of a Business, which narrows the existing definition of a business and provides a framework for evaluating whether a transaction should be accounted for as an acquisition (or disposal) of assets or a business. The ASU requires an entity to evaluate if substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar identifiable assets; if so, the set of transferred assets and activities (collectively, the set) is not a business. To be considered a business, the set would need to include an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create outputs. The standard also narrows the definition of outputs. The definition of a business affects areas of accounting such as acquisitions, disposals and goodwill. Under the new guidance, fewer acquired sets are expected to be considered businesses. For 3M, this ASU is effective January 1, 2018 on a prospective basis with early adoption permitted. 3M would apply this guidance to applicable transactions after the adoption date.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment. Under the new standard, goodwill impairment would be measured as the amount by which a reporting unit’s carrying value exceeds its fair value, not to exceed the carrying value of goodwill. This ASU eliminates existing guidance that requires an entity to determine goodwill impairment by calculating the implied fair value of goodwill by hypothetically assigning the fair value of a reporting unit to all of its assets and liabilities as if that reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination. For 3M, this ASU is effective prospectively to impairment tests beginning January 1, 2020, with early adoption permitted at the time of any interim impairment test that may be performed prior to that date. 3M currently plans to apply this ASU in the fourth quarter of 2017 in conjunction with its annual goodwill impairment testing.

In February 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-05, Clarifying the Scope of Asset Derecognition Guidance and Accounting for Partial Sales of Nonfinancial Assets. This ASU addresses scope-related questions that arose after the FASB issued its revenue guidance in ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. The new standard clarifies the accounting for derecognition of nonfinancial assets and defines what is considered an in substance nonfinancial asset. Nonfinancial assets largely relate to items such as real estate, ships and intellectual property that do not constitute a business. The new ASU impacts entities derecognizing (e.g. selling) nonfinancial assets (or in substance nonfinancial assets), including partial interests therein, when the purchaser is not a customer. Under the new guidance, the seller would apply certain recognition and measurement principles of ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, even though the purchaser is not a customer. For 3M, this new standard is effective coincident with the Company’s January 1, 2018 adoption of ASU No. 2014-09. The Company is currently assessing this ASU’s impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-07, Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost. This ASU changes how employers that sponsor defined benefit pension and/or other postretirement benefit plans present the net periodic benefit cost in the income statement. Under the new standard, only the service cost component of net periodic benefit cost would be included in operating expenses and only the service cost component would be eligible for capitalization into assets such as inventory. All other net periodic benefit costs components (such as interest, expected return on plan assets, prior service cost amortization and actuarial gain/loss

amortization) would be reported outside of operating income. For 3M, this ASU is effective January 1, 2018 on a retrospective basis; however, guidance limiting the capitalization to only the service cost component is applied on prospective basis. The components of 3M’s net periodic defined benefit pension and postretirement benefit costs are presented in Note 9. These include components totaling a benefit of $31 million and $50 million$3.6 billion for the three months ended September 30, 2017March 31, 2022 and 2016, respectively, and $95 million and $156 million$3.6 billion for the ninethree months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, that would no longer be included within operating expenses and instead would be reported outside of income from operations under the new standard.

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-08, Premium Amortization on Purchased Callable Debt Securities, which amends the amortization period for certain purchased callable debt securities held at a premium. Under existing standards, entities generally amortize the premium as an adjustment of yield over the contractual life of the instrument. The new guidance shortens the amortization period to the earliest call date for certain callable debt securities that have explicit, noncontingent call features and are callable at a fixed price and preset date. The amendments do not require an accounting change for securities held at a discount. For 3M, this ASU is effective January 1, 2019 with a modified retrospective transition resulting in a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is adopted. Early adoption is permitted. 3M’s marketable security portfolio includes very limited instances of callable debt securities held at a premium. As a result, the Company does not expect this ASU to have a material impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In May 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-09, Scope of Modification Accounting, that clarifies when changes to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award must be accounted for as a modification. The general model for accounting for modifications of share-based payment awards is to record the incremental value arising from the changes as additional compensation cost. Under the new standard, fewer changes to the terms of an award would require accounting under this modification model. For 3M, this ASU is effective January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted. Because the Company does not typically make changes to the terms or conditions of its issued share-based payment awards, 3M does not expect this ASU to have a material impact on its consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In May 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-10, Determining the Customer of the Operation Services, that clarifies how an operating entity determines the customer of the operation services for transactions within the scope of a service concession arrangement. Service concession arrangements are typically agreements between a grantor and an operating entity whereby the operating entity will operate the grantor’s infrastructure (i.e. airports, roadways, bridges, and prisons) for a specified period of time. The operating entity also may be required to maintain the infrastructure and provide capital-intensive maintenance to enhance or extend its life. In such arrangements, typically the operation services (i.e. operation and maintenance of a roadway) would be used by third parties (i.e. drivers). The ASU clarifies that the grantor, not the third party, is the customer of the operation services in such arrangements. For 3M, this new standard is effective coincident with the Company’s January 1, 2018 adoption of ASU No. 2014-09. Because the Company is not typically a party to agreements within the scope of accounting for service concession arrangements, 3M does not expect this ASU to have a material impact on its consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In July 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-11, (Part I) Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Down Round Features, (Part II) Replacement of the Indefinite Deferral for Mandatorily Redeemable Financial Instruments of Certain Nonpublic Entities and Certain Mandatorily Redeemable Noncontrolling Interests with a Scope Exception. The new standard applies to issuers of financial instruments with down-round features. A down-round provision is a term in an equity-linked financial instrument (i.e. a freestanding warrant contract or an equity conversion feature embedded within a host debt or equity contract) that triggers a downward adjustment to the instrument’s strike price (or conversion price) if equity shares are issued at a lower price (or equity-linked financial instruments are issued at a lower strike price) than the instrument’s then-current strike price. The purpose of the feature is typically to protect the instrument’s counterparty from future issuances of equity shares at a more favorable price. The ASU amends (1) the classification of such instruments as liabilities or equity by revising the certain guidance relative to evaluating if they must be accounted for as derivative instruments and (2) the guidance on recognition and measurement of freestanding equity-classified instruments. For 3M, this ASU is effective January 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted. Because the Company has not issued financial instruments with down-round features, 3M does not expect this ASU to have a material impact on its consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-12, Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities. The ASU amends existing guidance to simplify the application of hedge accounting in certain situations and allow companies to better align their hedge accounting with their risk management activities. Existing standards contain certain requirements for an instrument to qualify for hedge accounting relative to initial and ongoing assessments of hedge effectiveness. While an initial quantitative test to establish the hedge relationship is highly effective would still be required, the new ASU permits subsequent qualitative assessments for certain hedges instead of a quantitative test and expands the timeline for performing the initial quantitative assessment. The ASU also simplifies related accounting by eliminating the requirement to separately measure and report hedge ineffectiveness. Instead, for qualifying cash flow and net investment hedges, the entire change in fair value (including the amount attributable to ineffectiveness) will be recorded within other comprehensive income and reclassified to earnings in the same income statement line that is used to present the earnings effect of the hedged item when the hedged item affects earnings. For fair value hedges, generally, the entire change in fair value of the hedging instrument would also be presented in the same income statement line as the hedged item. The new standard also simplifies the accounting for fair value hedges of interest rate risks and expands an entity’s ability to hedge nonfinancial and financial risk components. In addition, the guidance also eases certain documentation requirements, modifies the accounting for components excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness, and requires additional tabular disclosures of derivative and hedge-related information. For 3M, this ASU is effective January 1, 2019, with a modified retrospective transition resulting in a cumulative-effect adjustment recorded to the opening balance of retained earnings as of the adoption date. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently assessing this ASU’s impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition.