UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(Amendment No.     )

Filed by the Registrant  x                             Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ¨

Check the appropriate box:

Corning Incorporated

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

Corning Incorporated is filing the attached additional materials in support of the Board of Directors’ recommended vote at our 2014 Annual Shareholders Meeting.

March 2014

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 2 Forward Looking and Cautionary Statements Certain statements in this presentation constitute “forward looking statements” within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward looking statements are based on current expectations and involve certain risks and uncertainties. Actual results might differ from those projected in the forward looking statements. Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to materially differ from those in the forward looking statements is contained in the Securities and Exchange Commission filings on the Company and at the end of this presentation.

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 3 The World Leader in Specialty Glass and Ceramics Business Segment Primary Products Primary Competitors (Largely Non-US Companies) Display Technologies Glass substrates for LCD flat panel televisions, computer monitors, laptops, and other consumer electronics • Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. • Nippon Electric Glass Co. Ltd. Environmental Technologies Ceramic substrates and diesel filters for emission control systems • Ibiden Co., Ltd. • NGK Insulators Ltd. Optical Communications Optical fiber, cable, and hardware and equipment for telephone and Internet communication networks • Prysmian Group • TE Connectivity Ltd. Life Sciences Glass and plastic labware, as well as label-free technology, media, and reagents for cell culture, genomics, and bioprocessing applications • Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. • Life Technologies Corporation Specialty Materials Cover glass for consumer electronics, advanced optics, and specialty glass solutions for a number of industries • Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. • Nippon Electric Glass Co. Ltd. • Hoya Corp. • Agilent Technologies, Inc. Our largest segment – Display Technologies – generated over 70% of our total core net income in 2013

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 4 Our Strategic Framework • Corning is a 163-year old company with a long track record of success. We are driven by our desire to create life-changing innovation. We believe our unique capabilities and culture are a sustainable competitive advantage that can deliver earnings growth and value to shareholders over long time periods. • We grow primarily through global innovation. Innovation comes with risks, so we proactively work to bring balance and stability to the company. We participate in diverse markets to reduce our volatility, and we have a conservative financial strategy to offset our relatively high operating leverage. Finally -- and most importantly -- we always live our values to ensure the trust of all our stakeholders.

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 5 The 2013 Say on Pay Vote and Our Response • Our 2013 Say-on-Pay vote (71%) led us to a comprehensive review of our programs and shareholder outreach effort • We reached out to over 30 of our largest shareholders, representing more than 40% of our outstanding shares • Shareholders sent us the following messages during our outreach: – Explain peer grouping better – Strengthen and explain the linkage of pay to performance in a down cycle – Increase the proportion of pay that is performance-based – Extend performance time horizon for long-term plan We heard the message from our shareholders and took decisive action to respond to their concerns

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 6 Our Response to the 2013 Say on Pay Vote Investor Feedback Responsive Program Refinements Explain Peer Grouping Clarify the use of a compensation peer group relative to Corning’s key competitors • Heightened disclosure of financial performance peers in addition to compensation benchmark peers Strengthen Pay for Performance Link in Down Cycle • 100% of NEOs’ annual bonus under the annual Performance Incentive Plan will be capped at 150% of target (vs. our normal cap of 200% of target) if the profitability goal is budgeted to be lower than the prior year’s actual result and TSR for that year is positive • If TSR is negative for such year, the bonus opportunity will be capped at 100% Increase Proportion of Pay that is Performance Based • Increased the weighting of Cash Performance Units (CPUs) from 50 to 60% of LTI opportunity, as of 2014 Longer Performance Periods Extend the performance time horizon for the long- term incentive program • Extended the performance timeline for CPUs to reflect average performance over three years (vs. the current one year performance period), based on performance goals that are set each year

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 7 Key Elements of Compensation: Strengthening Links Between Pay and Performance Key Pay Elements Form of Compensation Delivered Short-Term/Annual Incentives Performance Metrics Long-Term Incentives Restricted Stock and Stock Options Performance Incentive Plan (Cash) Goal Sharing (Company-Wide Unit Plan; Paid in Cash) Cash Performance Units (CPUs) Weighted Average of Business Unit Plans 2013: Each are 25% of LTI Target 2013: Net Profit After Tax (NPAT) (Adj.) 2014: Core EPS (75%) and  Core Net Sales Growth (25%) (Adj.) 2013: 50% of LTI Target; Based on 50% Operating Cash Flow (Adjusted) and 50% EPS (Adj.) 2014: 60% of LTI Target; Based on 70% Operating Cash Flow (Adj.) and 30% on Core Net Sales Growth 2014: Restricted Stock 25% of LTI Target; Options 15% of LTI Target

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 8 Performance Metric Goal Setting: Rigorous and Performance-Based • CEO target compensation starts at the median of the peer group, moving up or down based on company performance • Use business-driven, bottom-up and corporate, top-down budgets subject to multiple levels of review in setting meaningful performance metrics on executive compensation • Use a “flat spot” in our annual incentive plan that is intended to avoid imprudent risk-taking to achieving cliff goals – The “flat spot” requires targets to be exceeded by a meaningful margin before significantly increasing payouts

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 9 Putting Peer Comparisons in Context • The majority of our businesses do not have unique, identifiable U.S. peers • Most of our businesses compete with non-U.S. companies, or privately held companies that do not provide comparable executive compensation disclosure • Direct competitors are not suitable for a compensation peer group because they are non-U.S. and/or much larger companies • We must look to globally diversified companies or innovation companies in other industries to find companies of similar size and complexity; such companies are good for compensation comparison purposes, but not for direct financial performance comparisons • Our goal is to position target compensation for our CEO within a competitive range of the peer group median

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 10 Distinguishing Compensation Peers and Competitors Corning Business Segment Primary Competitors (Largely Non-US Companies) Compensation Peers Display Technologies • Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. • Nippon Electric Glass Co. Ltd. • Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. • Agilent Technologies, Inc. • Applied Materials, Inc. • BorgWarner, Inc. • Boston Scientific Corporation • Broadcom Corporation • Cummins Inc. • Danaher Corporation • Dover Corporation • Eaton Corporation PLC • Harris Corporation • Juniper Networks, Inc. • Medtronic, Inc. • Monsanto Company • Motorola Solutions, Inc. • NetApp, Inc. • PPG Industries, Inc. • Praxair, Inc. • QUALCOMM, Inc. • Rockwell Automation, Inc. • TE Connectivity Limited • Texas Instruments Incorporated • Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. Environmental Technologies • Ibiden Co., Ltd. • NGK Insulators Ltd. Optical Communications • Prysmian Group • TE Connectivity Ltd. Life Sciences • Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. • Life Technologies Corporation Specialty Materials • Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. • Nippon Electric Glass Co. Ltd. • Hoya Corp. • Agilent Technologies, Inc.

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 11 Distinguishing Compensation Peers and Competitors Size Metric Corning’s Percent Rank* Revenue 39% Market Capitalization 52% Net Income 78% Total Assets 83% Employees 61% *Based on compensation data in proxy statements filed in 2013. • Our key competitors are not suitable for a compensation peer group • We use a mix of complex, globally diversified companies for the compensation peer group • The compensation peer group is reasonably aligned with Corning in terms of complexity, market value, and financial comparability

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 12 Sound Compensation Governance and Risk Management Thoughtful Oversight and State-of-the-Art Compensation Governance Board engagement with shareholders and demonstrated responsiveness to input Mix of cash and equity payouts tied to both short-term financial performance and long-term value creation Significant share ownership requirements (6x salary for CEO, 3x for other NEOs) Capped payout levels for annual incentives Anti-hedging and pledging policies Clawback policy Eliminated tax gross-ups 100% independent Compensation Committee with experienced mix of directors Independent compensation consultant

Appendix A: Performance Comparisons

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 14 2013 Financial Performance Peer Group Comparison • Our largest competitors and most relevant financial performance peers are not U.S. companies. Therefore, the best companies for financial performance comparison purposes are not the same as those in the Compensation Peer Group we use for compensation benchmarking. • The following tables contains certain financial performance data of Corning and each of our business segments, compared with our largest competitors in each of those segments, including core sales and NPAT compound annual growth rates (“CAGR”). Overall, we performed well in 2013 in each of our business segments. Our performance was particularly strong in our Display Technologies segment, which accounted for more than 70% of our core net income in 2013.

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 15 2013 Financial Performance Peer Group Comparison (Cont’d)

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 16 2013 Financial Performance Peer Group Comparison (Cont’d)

Investor Relations © Corning Incorporated 2014 17 Forward Looking and Cautionary Statements This presentation contains “forward-looking statements” (within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995), which are based on current expectations and assumptions about Corning’s financial results and business operations, that involve substantial risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. These risks and uncertainties include: the effect of global political, economic and business conditions; conditions in the financial and credit markets; currency fluctuations; tax rates; product demand and industry capacity; competition; reliance on a concentrated customer base; manufacturing efficiencies; cost reductions; availability of critical components and materials; new product commercialization; pricing fluctuations and changes in the mix of sales between premium and non-premium products; new plant start-up or restructuring costs; possible disruption in commercial activities due to terrorist activity, armed conflict, political or financial instability, natural disasters, adverse weather conditions, or major health concerns; adequacy of insurance; equity company activities; acquisition and divestiture activities; the level of excess or obsolete inventory; the rate of technology change; the ability to enforce patents; product and components performance issues; retention of key personnel; stock price fluctuations; and adverse litigation or regulatory developments. These and other risk factors are detailed in Corning’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the day that they are made, and Corning undertakes no obligation to update them in light of new information or future events.