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 a Party other than the Registrant ☐ |
||
|
||
Check the appropriate box: |
||
|
|
|
☐ |
Preliminary Proxy Statement |
|
|
|
|
☐ |
Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) |
|
|
|
|
☒ |
Definitive Proxy Statement |
|
|
|
|
☐ |
Definitive Additional Materials |
|
|
|
|
☐ |
Soliciting Material under §240.14a-12 |
|
|
|
|
ECOLAB INC. |
||
|
||
(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): |
||
|
||
☒ No fee required. |
||
|
||
☐ Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. |
||
|
||
(1) |
Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: |
|
|
|
|
(3) |
Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): |
|
|
|
|
(4) |
Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: |
|
|
|
|
(5) |
Total fee paid: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
☐ Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. |
||
|
|
|
☐ Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. |
||
|
|
|
(1) |
Amount Previously Paid: |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: |
|
|
|
|
(3) |
Filing Party: |
|
|
|
|
(4) |
Date Filed: |
|
|
|
Notice of 2018 Annual Meeting and
Proxy Statement
Annual Meeting to be Held on May 3, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 | |||||
2 | |||||
5 | |||||
7 | |||||
7 | |||||
Future Stockholder Proposals and Director Nomination Process |
7 | ||||
11 | |||||
11 | |||||
12 | |||||
13 | |||||
13 | |||||
13 | |||||
13 | |||||
14 | |||||
14 | |||||
15 | |||||
15 | |||||
17 | |||||
17 | |||||
|
18 | ||||
18 | |||||
19 | |||||
20 | |||||
20 | |||||
21 | |||||
21 | |||||
21 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
i |
23 | ||||
28 | ||||
28 | ||||
28 | ||||
33 | ||||
34 | ||||
35 | ||||
35 | ||||
36 | ||||
37 | ||||
38 | ||||
41 | ||||
43 | ||||
43 | ||||
43 | ||||
44 | ||||
44 | ||||
46 | ||||
48 | ||||
50 | ||||
51 | ||||
52 | ||||
56 | ||||
58 |
ii |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
iii |
March 19, 2018
DEAR FELLOW STOCKHOLDER:
You are cordially invited to join us for our Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 3, 2018, in the Cafeteria of the Ecolab Global Headquarters, 1 Ecolab Place, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102. The Notice of Annual Meeting and the Proxy Statement that follow describe the business to be conducted at our Annual Meeting. We urge you to read both carefully.
We hope you plan to attend our Annual Meeting. However, if you will not be able to join us, we encourage you to exercise your right as a stockholder and vote. Please sign, date and promptly return the accompanying proxy card, or make use of either our telephone or Internet voting services. Stockholders not in attendance may listen to a broadcast of the meeting on the Internet. Webcast instructions will be available on-line at www.investor.ecolab.com.
|
Sincerely, |
|
Douglas M. Baker, Jr. |
|
Chairman of the Board |
YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT!
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR PROXY TODAY.
Your vote is a valuable part of the investment made in our Company and is the best way to influence corporate governance and decision-making. Please take time to read the enclosed materials and vote!
Whether or not you plan to attend the meeting, please complete the accompanying proxy and return it in the enclosed envelope. Alternatively, you may vote by telephone or the Internet. If you attend the meeting, you may vote your shares in person even though you have previously returned your proxy by mail, telephone or the Internet.
PLEASE REFER TO THE ACCOMPANYING MATERIALS FOR VOTING INSTRUCTIONS.
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
TO BE HELD ON MAY 3, 2018
To the Stockholders of Ecolab Inc.:
The Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Ecolab Inc. will be held on Thursday, May 3, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., in the Cafeteria of the Ecolab Global Headquarters, 1 Ecolab Place, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, for the following purposes (which are more fully explained in the Proxy Statement):
1. |
To elect as directors to a one-year term ending in 2019 the 13 nominees named in the Proxy Statement; |
2. |
To ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the current year ending December 31, 2018; |
3. |
To approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of executives disclosed in the Proxy Statement; |
4. |
To consider and vote on a stockholder proposal regarding the threshold to call special stockholder meetings, if properly presented; and |
5. |
To transact such other business as may properly come before our Annual Meeting and any adjournment or postponement thereof. |
Our Board of Directors has fixed the close of business on March 6, 2018 as the record date for the determination of stockholders entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the meeting.
|
|
|
By Order of the Board of Directors |
|
Michael C. McCormick |
|
Executive Vice President, General Counsel |
|
March 19, 2018 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
1 |
This proxy summary is intended to provide a broad overview of the items that you will find elsewhere in this Proxy Statement. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider, and we encourage you to read the entire Proxy Statement carefully before voting. We are first mailing this Proxy Statement and accompanying form of proxy to our stockholders on or about March 19, 2018.
Annual Meeting of Stockholders
Date and Time: Thursday, May 3, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.
Location: The Cafeteria of the Ecolab Global Headquarters, 1 Ecolab Place, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Record Date: March 6, 2018
Meeting Agenda and Items of Business
|
|
|
|
|
Proposal |
|
Board’s Voting |
|
Reference |
1. Election of Directors |
|
FOR |
|
23 |
2. Ratification of Independent Accountants |
|
FOR |
|
66 |
3. Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation |
|
FOR |
|
67 |
4. Stockholder Proposal Regarding the Threshold to Call Special Stockholder Meetings, if properly presented |
|
AGAINST |
|
68 |
Name of Director Nominee |
|
Age |
|
Years of Service |
|
Occupation |
||||
Non-Independent Directors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Douglas M. Baker, Jr. |
|
59 |
|
14 |
|
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Ecolab Inc. |
||||
Independent Directors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Barbara J. Beck |
|
57 |
|
10 |
|
Chief Executive Officer, Learning Care Group, Inc. |
||||
Leslie S. Biller |
|
70 |
|
20 |
|
Chief Executive Officer, Harborview Capital |
||||
Carl M. Casale |
|
56 |
|
4 |
|
Former President and Chief Executive Officer, CHS Inc. |
||||
Stephen I. Chazen |
|
71 |
|
5 |
|
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of TPG Pace Energy Holdings Corp. |
||||
Jeffrey M. Ettinger |
|
59 |
|
3 |
|
Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hormel Foods Corporation |
||||
Arthur J. Higgins |
|
62 |
|
8 |
|
President and Chief Executive Officer, Depomed Inc. |
||||
Michael Larson |
|
58 |
|
6 |
|
Chief investment officer to William H. Gates III |
||||
David W. MacLennan |
|
58 |
|
3 |
|
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Cargill, Incorporated |
||||
Tracy B. McKibben |
|
48 |
|
3 |
|
Founder and Chief Executive Officer, MAC Energy Advisors LLC |
||||
Victoria J. Reich |
|
60 |
|
8 |
|
Former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Essendant Inc. |
||||
Suzanne M. Vautrinot |
|
58 |
|
4 |
|
President, Kilovolt Consulting Inc. |
||||
John J. Zillmer |
|
62 |
|
12 |
|
Retired President and Chief Executive Officer, Univar Inc. |
The Board of Directors of Ecolab Inc. is asking you to elect 13 director nominees. The table above provides summary information about the director nominees. A nominee will only be elected if the number of votes cast for the nominee’s election is greater than the number of votes cast against the nominee. For more information, see page 23.
2 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
Ratification of Independent Accountants
The Board of Directors is asking you to ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm to audit our consolidated financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2018. For more information, see page 66.
Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation
The Board of Directors is asking you to approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this Proxy Statement. For more information, see page 67.
Stockholder Proposal Regarding the Threshold to Call Special Stockholder Meetings
The Board of Directors recommends that you vote AGAINST a stockholder proposal regarding the threshold to call special stockholder meetings, if properly presented. For more information, see page 68.
Summary of Compensation Practices
Key compensation practices include the following:
· |
We use different performance measures in our short-term and long-term incentive plans. |
· |
We have a balanced double-trigger change-in-control severance policy with no tax gross-ups. |
· |
We have robust stock ownership guidelines of 6 times salary for our CEO and 3 times salary for our other officers. |
· |
Risk mitigation features in our compensation programs include varied and balanced performance targets, discretionary authority of the Compensation Committee to reduce award pay-outs, bonus caps at 200% of target and a claw-back policy. |
· |
We do not maintain employment agreements with any of our named executive officers. |
For more information, see page 28.
Corporate Governance Highlights
Key aspects of our corporate governance structure, policies and processes include the following:
· |
All of our directors, with the exception of our CEO, are independent. |
· |
We have an independent Lead Director with substantial and clearly delineated authority. |
· |
We do not have a stockholder rights plan. |
· |
Each director serves a one-year term and stands for re-election at each annual meeting. |
· |
Directors elected in uncontested elections must receive a majority vote. A director who fails to receive the required number of votes for election must tender his or her written resignation for consideration by the Board. |
· |
All of our named executive officers hold Ecolab common stock in excess of our stock ownership guidelines. |
For more information, see page 13.
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
3 |
PROXY STATEMENT
ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
MAY 3, 2018
1 Ecolab Place, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
The Board of Directors of Ecolab Inc. is using this Proxy Statement (the “Proxy Statement”) to solicit proxies from the holders of Ecolab Common Stock, par value $1.00 per share (“Common Stock”), for use at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Ecolab Stockholders. We are first mailing this Proxy Statement and accompanying form of proxy to Ecolab stockholders on or about March 19, 2018.
· |
Meeting Time and Place – Thursday, May 3, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., in the Cafeteria of the Ecolab Global Headquarters, 1 Ecolab Place, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102. |
· |
Purpose of the Meeting – is to vote on the following items: |
1. |
To elect as directors to a one-year term ending in 2019 the 13 nominees named in this Proxy Statement; |
2. |
To ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the current year ending December 31, 2018; |
3. |
To approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of executives disclosed in the Proxy Statement; |
4. |
To consider and vote on a stockholder proposal regarding the threshold to call special stockholder meetings, if properly presented; and |
5. |
To transact such other business as may properly come before our Annual Meeting and any adjournment or postponement thereof. |
· |
Record Date – The record date for determining the holders of Common Stock entitled to vote at our Annual Meeting is the close of business on March 6, 2018. |
· |
Shares Entitled to Vote – As of March 6, 2018, the record date for the meeting, there were 288,348,134 shares of Common Stock outstanding. Each share of Common Stock is entitled to one vote. Common Stock held by Ecolab in our treasury is not counted in shares outstanding and will not be voted. |
Note – References in this Proxy Statement to “Ecolab,” “the Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us” are to Ecolab Inc.
4 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
VOTING PROCEDURES
Quorum – A quorum of stockholders is necessary to hold a valid meeting. The presence in person or by proxy at the meeting of holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of Common Stock entitled to vote at the meeting is a quorum. Abstentions and broker non-votes count as present for establishing a quorum. Common Stock held by Ecolab in our treasury does not count toward a quorum.
Broker Non-Votes – Broker non-votes occur on a proposal when the beneficial owner of Common Stock does not submit voting instructions to a broker or bank. Under New York Stock Exchange rules, brokers, banks and other nominees generally will have discretionary authority to vote shares in absence of instructions on "routine" matters, such as the ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and will not have discretion to vote shares on non-routine matters. Other than the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, broker non-votes are not counted as votes cast for any purpose in determining whether a matter has been approved. To ensure that their views are represented at the meeting, we strongly urge all beneficial owners to provide specific voting instructions on all matters to be considered at the meeting to their record-holding brokers.
Treatment of Abstentions – Shares voted “Abstain” will have no effect on the election of directors or on the non-binding vote regarding the threshold to call special stockholder meetings. For the other proposals to be voted on at the Annual Meeting, abstentions are treated as shares present or represented and voting and therefore have the same effect as negative votes.
How to Vote by Proxy – You may vote in person by ballot at our Annual Meeting or by submitting a valid proxy. We recommend you submit your proxy even if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting. If you attend the Annual Meeting, you may vote by ballot, thereby canceling any proxy previously submitted.
Voting instructions are included on your proxy card. If you properly complete your proxy and submit it to us in time to be tabulated, one of the individuals named as your proxy will vote your Common Stock as you have directed. You may vote for or against each proposal, or you may abstain from voting on a proposal. With respect to the election of directors, you may vote for or against each nominee, or you may abstain from voting on the election of one or more nominees.
Revoking Your Proxy – You may revoke your proxy at any time before it is voted by:
· |
timely delivery of a valid, later-dated proxy, including a proxy given by telephone or Internet; |
· |
timely delivery of written notice to our Corporate Secretary before the Annual Meeting, stating that you have revoked your proxy; or |
· |
voting by ballot at our Annual Meeting. |
Vote Tabulation – The vote on each proposal will be tabulated as follows:
Proposal 1: Election of Directors – Each nominee will be elected by a majority of the votes cast in uncontested elections. We currently expect that the election of directors at our meeting will be uncontested. Under the majority voting standard, a nominee must receive a number of “FOR” votes that exceeds 50% of the votes cast with respect to that director’s election. Votes cast with respect to a nominee include votes FOR or AGAINST a nominee and exclude abstentions and broker non-votes.
If an uncontested nominee for director does not receive an affirmative majority of “FOR” votes, he or she will be required to promptly offer his or her resignation to the Board’s independent Governance Committee. That committee will then make a recommendation to the Board as to whether the offered resignation should be accepted or rejected, or whether other action should be taken. The Board will publicly announce its decision regarding the offered resignation and the rationale behind it within 90 days after the election results have been certified. Any director who has so offered his or her resignation will not be permitted to vote on or participate in the recommendation of the Governance Committee or the Board’s decision with respect to his or her resignation.
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
5 |
VOTING PROCEDURES
Unless a contrary choice is specified, proxies solicited by our Board of Directors will be voted FOR the election of the 13 nominees named in this Proxy Statement. If, for any reason, any nominee becomes unavailable for election prior to our Annual Meeting, the proxies solicited by our Board of Directors will be voted FOR such substituted nominee as is selected by our Board of Directors, or our Board of Directors, at its option, may reduce the number of directors to constitute the entire Board.
Proposal 2: Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm – The affirmative vote of a majority of the total votes cast by holders of shares present in person or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote will constitute ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Unless a contrary choice is specified, proxies solicited by our Board of Directors will be voted FOR ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
Proposal 3: Advisory Vote to Approve the Compensation of Executives Disclosed in this Proxy Statement – The affirmative vote of a majority of the total votes cast by holders of shares present in person or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote will constitute approval of the compensation of executives disclosed in this Proxy Statement. Unless a contrary choice is specified, proxies solicited by our Board of Directors will be voted FOR approval of the compensation of executives disclosed in this Proxy Statement.
Proposal 4: Stockholder Proposal Regarding the Threshold to Call Special Stockholder Meetings – For this proposal, which calls for a non-binding vote regarding the threshold to call special stockholder meetings, the affirmative vote of a majority of the total votes cast by holders of shares present in person or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote will constitute approval of the proposal, if properly presented at the meeting. Unless a contrary choice is specified, proxies solicited by our Board of Directors will be voted AGAINST the proposal.
Discretionary Voting – We are not currently aware of any other business to be acted upon at our Annual Meeting. If, however, other matters are properly brought before the Annual Meeting, or any adjournment or postponement of the Annual Meeting, your proxy includes discretionary authority on the part of the individuals appointed to vote your Common Stock or act on those matters according to their best judgment, including to adjourn the Annual Meeting.
Adjournments – Adjournment of our Annual Meeting may be made for the purpose of, among other things, soliciting additional proxies. Any adjournment may be made from time to time by approval of the holders of Common Stock representing a majority of the votes present in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting, whether or not a quorum exists, without further notice other than by an announcement made at the Annual Meeting. We do not currently intend to seek an adjournment of the Annual Meeting.
6 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
STOCKHOLDER ACCESS
Our stakeholders and other interested parties, including our stockholders and employees, can send substantive communications to our Board using the following methods published on our website at www.investor.ecolab.com/corporate-governance:
· |
to correspond with the Board’s Lead Director, please complete and submit the on-line “Contact Lead Director” form; |
· |
to report potential issues regarding accounting, internal controls and other auditing matters to the Board’s Audit Committee, please complete and submit the on-line “Contact Audit Committee” form; or |
· |
to make a stockholder recommendation for a potential candidate for nomination to the Board, please submit an e-mail to the Board’s Governance Committee, in care of our Corporate Secretary, at investor.info@ecolab.com. |
All substantive communications regarding governance matters or potential accounting, control, compliance or auditing irregularities are promptly relayed or brought to the attention of the Lead Director or Chair of the Audit Committee following review by our management. Communications not requiring the substantive attention of our Board, such as employment inquiries, sales solicitations, questions about our products and other such matters, are handled directly by our management. In such instances, we respond to the communicating party on behalf of the Board. Nonetheless, our management periodically updates the Board on all of the on-line communications received, whether or not our management believes they are substantive. In addition to on-line communications, interested parties may direct correspondence to our Board of Directors, our Board Committees or to individual directors at our headquarters address, repeated at the top of page 4 of this Proxy Statement.
Future Stockholder Proposals and Director Nomination Process
Any stockholder proposal, other than those for director nominations, must comply with advance notice procedures set forth in Article II, Section 4 of our By-Laws. As described in more detail below, stockholder proposals for director nominations must comply with Article II, Section 3 and Section 15 of our By-Laws. Under our By-Laws, to be in proper written form, the stockholder’s notice to our Corporate Secretary must set forth as to each matter such stockholder proposes to bring before the Annual Meeting a brief description of the business desired to be brought before the Annual Meeting and the reasons for conducting such business at the Annual Meeting and, as to the stockholder giving the notice and any Stockholder Associated Person (i.e., any person acting in concert, directly or indirectly, with such stockholder and any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such stockholder): (i) the name and record address of such person, (ii) the class or series and the number of shares beneficially owned by the stockholder, (iii) the nominee holder for, and number of, shares owned beneficially but not of record by such person, (iv) whether and the extent to which any hedging or other transaction or series of transactions has been entered into by or on behalf of, or any other agreement or arrangement has been made, the effect or intent of which is to mitigate loss to or manage risk or benefit of share price changes for, or to increase or decrease the voting power of, such person with respect to any share of stock of the Company, (v) to the extent known, the name and address of any other stockholder supporting the proposal, (vi) a description of all arrangements or understandings between or among such persons in connection with the proposal and any material interest in such proposal, and (vii) a representation by the stockholder that he or she intends to appear at the Annual Meeting to present the business. Any ownership information shall be supplemented by the stockholder giving the notice not later than ten (10) days after the record date for the meeting as of the record date. This summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of our By-Laws, which can be found on our website at www.investor.ecolab.com/corporate-governance. If the presiding Chairperson of the Annual Meeting of Stockholders determines that business, or a nomination, was not brought before the meeting in accordance with the By-Law provisions, that business will not be transacted or the defective nomination will not be accepted.
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
7 |
STOCKHOLDER ACCESS
· |
Deadline for Inclusion in the Proxy Statement – All proposals, other than with respect to director nominees (as discussed below), to be considered by the Board for inclusion in the Proxy Statement and form of proxy for next year’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders expected to be held on May 2, 2019, must be received by the Corporate Secretary at our headquarters address, repeated at the top of page 4 of this Proxy Statement, no later than November 19, 2018. |
· |
Deadline for Consideration – Stockholder proposals not included in a Company proxy statement for an annual meeting as well as proposed stockholder nominations for the election of directors for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement and form of proxy at an annual meeting must each comply with advance notice procedures set forth in our By-Laws in order to be properly brought before that annual meeting of stockholders. In general, written notice of a stockholder proposal or a director nomination must be received by the Corporate Secretary not less than 120 days nor more than 150 days prior to the anniversary date of the preceding annual meeting of stockholders. With regard to next year’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders, expected to be held on May 2, 2019, the written notice must be received between December 4, 2018 and January 3, 2019, inclusive. |
- |
Review and recommend to the Board of Directors policies for the composition of the Board, including such criteria as: |
§ |
size of the Board; |
§ |
diversity of gender, race, ethnicity, experience, employment, background and other relevant factors of Board members; |
§ |
the proportion of the Board to be comprised of non-management directors; |
§ |
qualifications for new or continued membership on the Board, including experience, employment, background and other relevant considerations; and |
§ |
director retirement requirements or standards. |
- |
Review any director nominee candidates recommended by stockholders. |
- |
Identify, interview and evaluate director nominee candidates and have sole authority to: |
§ |
retain and terminate any search firm to be used to assist the Committee in identifying director candidates; and |
§ |
approve the search firm’s fees and other retention terms. |
- |
Recommend to the Board: |
§ |
the slate of director nominees to be presented by the Board for election at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders; |
§ |
the director nominees to fill vacancies on the Board; and |
§ |
the members of each Board Committee. |
8 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
STOCKHOLDER ACCESS
· |
Proxy Access – Under our By-Laws, a stockholder or a group of up to 20 stockholders owning 3% or more of the Company’s outstanding shares continuously for at least three years may nominate and include in our proxy materials director candidates constituting up to the greater of two individuals or 20% of the Board, provided that the stockholder(s) and the nominee(s) satisfy the requirements specified in our By-Laws. Our proxy access by-law limits the number of stockholders that may aggregate their shares to satisfy the 3% test to 20 stockholders. For purposes of the 20 stockholder limit, certain related funds are counted as one stockholder. |
In terms of our principles for composition of the Board generally, and qualifications for director nominees specifically, we refer you to our Corporate Governance Principles, which can be found on our website at www.investor.ecolab.com/corporate-governance. Under these provisions, for example:
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
9 |
STOCKHOLDER ACCESS
· |
No more than three Board members will be from current management. These management members normally would be the Chief Executive Officer, the Chairman (if an employee of the Company and not the CEO) and the President (if an employee of the Company and not the CEO) but may be any other officer deemed appropriate by the Board; |
· |
It is desired that the members of the Board represent a geographical dispersion and variety of business disciplines so as to bring to the work of the Board a diversity of experience and background, with the predominance of members being chief or executive officers from different industries; and |
· |
A continuing effort is made to seek well-qualified women and minority group members for the Board, but these persons must be sought out and evaluated as individuals rather than as representatives of specific groups. The Board of Directors is committed to actively seeking out highly-qualified women and minority candidates for each search the Board undertakes. In identifying, evaluating and recommending director nominee candidates, the Committee will consider diversity of gender and ethnicity within the Board, the criteria set forth in the section above entitled “Director Nomination Process,” and such other factors as the Committee deems appropriate. The Board conducts a periodic review of its efforts to achieve such diversity among its members. |
Other criteria relevant to service as a director of our Company are also set forth in our Corporate Governance Principles.
In recent years, the Governance Committee’s efforts in recruiting new directors have included a focus on candidates with significant organizational leadership experience, including individuals who were chief executive officers or otherwise headed a large and complex organization, and on qualified candidates with experience that would round out our Board, particularly experience germane to our key end-markets, such as food, water and energy, and technical competencies, such as information technology and cybersecurity. The Committee has also sought to ensure that women and people of color were considered each time that the Committee undertook a formal search process to recruit director candidates.
All directors are encouraged to submit to the Governance Committee the name of any person deemed qualified to serve on the Board, together with information on the candidate’s qualifications. The Governance Committee screens and submits to the full Board the names and biographical information of those persons considered by the Committee to be viable candidates for election as directors. The same evaluation process and criteria are used by the Committee: (i) for recommendations for director candidates submitted by stockholders in accordance with our Restated Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws, and (ii) for recommendations submitted by any other source, such as a director or a third-party search firm.
10 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
SECURITY OWNERSHIP
The following table sets forth information as to entities which have reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or have advised us that they are a “beneficial owner,” as defined by the SEC’s rules and regulations, of more than 5% of our outstanding Common Stock.
Title of
|
|
Name and Address
|
|
Amount and Nature
|
|
Percent of
|
Common |
|
William H. Gates III |
|
32,862,318 (2) |
|
11.4% |
|
|
One Microsoft Way |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redmond, WA 98052
|
|
|
|
|
Common |
|
The Vanguard Group |
|
21,399,852 (3) |
|
7.4% |
|
|
100 Vanguard Blvd. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Malvern, PA 19355
|
|
|
|
|
Common |
|
BlackRock, Inc. |
|
15,713,077 (4) |
|
5.4% |
|
|
55 East 52nd Street |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York, NY 10022
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
The percent of class is based on the number of voting shares outstanding as of March 6, 2018. |
(2) |
This information is based on Amendment No. 5 to the Schedule 13D filed jointly with the SEC on May 7, 2012 by Cascade Investment, L.L.C., which we refer to as Cascade, William H. Gates III, whom we refer to as Mr. Gates, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, which we refer to as the Trust, and Melinda French Gates, whom we refer to as Mrs. Gates, and a Form 4 relating to Mr. Gates filed with the SEC on August 7, 2017. Mr. Gates reports that he has sole power to vote or direct the vote, and to dispose or to direct the disposition, of 28,495,893 shares of Ecolab Common Stock beneficially owned by Cascade, as the sole member of such entity. Additionally, Amendment No. 5 to the Schedule 13D reports that Mr. Gates and Mrs. Gates share the power to vote or direct the vote, and to dispose or to direct the disposition of, 4,366,425 shares of Ecolab Common Stock beneficially owned by the Trust, as co-trustees of such entity. |
(3) |
This information is based on Amendment No. 5 to the Schedule 13G filed on February 9, 2018 by The Vanguard Group, Inc., which we refer to as Vanguard. Vanguard reports that, as of December 31, 2017, they have sole power to vote or direct the vote of 373,649 shares, shared power to vote or direct the vote of 63,754 shares, sole power to dispose or to direct the disposition of 20,974,892 shares and shared power to dispose or direct the disposition of 424,960 shares of Ecolab Common Stock. |
(4) |
This information is based on Amendment No. 3 to the Schedule 13G filed on February 8, 2018 by BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”). BlackRock reports that, as of December 31, 2017, they have sole power to vote or direct the vote of 13,332,859 shares, and sole power to dispose or to direct the disposition of 15,713,077 shares of Ecolab Common Stock. |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
11 |
SECURITY OWNERSHIP
Executive Officers and Directors
In general, “beneficial ownership” includes those shares of our Common Stock which a director or executive officer has the power to vote or transfer, as well as stock options that are exercisable currently or within 60 days and stock underlying stock units that may be acquired within 60 days. On March 6, 2018, our current executive officers and directors beneficially owned, in the aggregate, 4,370,647 shares of Common Stock constituting approximately 1.5% of our shares outstanding. As required by SEC disclosure rules, “shares outstanding” for this purpose includes options exercisable within 60 days and stock underlying stock units that may be acquired within 60 days by such executive officers and directors. The detail of beneficial ownership is set forth in the following table.
Name of Beneficial Owner |
|
Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership |
|
Percentage of Outstanding Shares Beneficially Owned |
|||
Named Executive Officers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas M. Baker, Jr. (Chief Executive Officer) |
|
1,896,660 |
(1)(2)(4) |
|
* |
|
|
Daniel J. Schmechel (Chief Financial Officer) |
|
332,159 |
(1)(2) |
|
* |
|
|
Thomas W. Handley |
|
388,002 |
(1)(2)(4) |
|
* |
|
|
Christophe Beck |
|
193,378 |
(1)(2) |
|
* |
|
|
Michael A. Hickey |
|
210,892 |
(1)(2) |
|
* |
|
|
Directors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barbara J. Beck |
|
38,110 |
(2)(3) |
|
* |
|
|
Leslie S. Biller |
|
98,336 |
(2)(3) |
|
* |
|
|
Carl M. Casale |
|
21,986 |
(2)(3) |
|
* |
|
|
Stephen I. Chazen |
|
23,202 |
(2)(3) |
|
* |
|
|
Jeffrey M. Ettinger |
|
11,264 |
(2)(3) |
|
* |
|
|
Arthur J. Higgins |
|
40,560 |
(2)(3) |
|
* |
|
|
Michael Larson |
|
21,340 |
(2)(3)(5) |
|
* |
(5) |
|
David W. MacLennan |
|
11,939 |
(2)(3)(4) |
|
* |
|
|
Tracy B. McKibben |
|
9,301 |
(2)(3) |
|
* |
|
|
Victoria J. Reich |
|
45,072 |
(2)(3) |
|
* |
|
|
Suzanne M. Vautrinot |
|
12,517 |
(2)(3) |
|
* |
|
|
John J. Zillmer |
|
52,927 |
(2)(3) |
|
* |
|
|
Directors and Executive Officers as a Group (26 persons) |
|
4,370,647 |
(4)(5) |
|
1.5 |
% (4)(5) |
* Indicates beneficial ownership of less than 1% of our outstanding Common Stock.
(1) |
Includes the following shares held by officers in the Ecolab Savings Plan and ESOP for Traditional Benefit Employees or Ecolab Savings Plan and ESOP as of the last Plan report: Mr. Baker, 10,182; Mr. Schmechel, 5,232; Mr. Handley, 1,035; Mr. Beck, 2,050; and Mr. Hickey, 7,409. |
(2) |
Includes the following shares which could be purchased under Company-granted stock options within 60 days from March 6, 2018 including, in the case of retirement-eligible officers, options vesting upon retirement from the Company: Mr. Baker, 1,223,504 Mr. Schmechel, 181,743; Mr. Handley, 256,499; Mr. Beck, 164,525; Mr. Hickey, 154,805; Ms. Beck, 15,900; Mr. Biller, 34,000; Mr. Casale, 9,900; Mr. Chazen, 12,100; Mr. Ettinger, 6,500; Mr. Higgins, 24,600; Mr. Larson, 16,600; Mr. MacLennan, 5,300; Ms. McKibben, 6,900; Ms. Reich, 26,800; Ms. Vautrinot, 9,400; and Mr. Zillmer, 29,800. |
(3) |
Includes the following interests in stock units under our 2001 Non-Employee Director Stock Option and Deferred Compensation Plan: Ms. Beck, 22,210; Mr. Biller, 34,792; Mr. Casale, 3,281; Mr. Chazen, 6,102; Mr. Ettinger, 4,764; Mr. Higgins, 15,960; Mr. Larson, 4,740; Mr. MacLennan, 1,704; Ms. McKibben, 2,401; Ms. Reich, 17,272; Ms. Vautrinot, 3,117; and Mr. Zillmer, 9,827. The stock units are Common Stock equivalents which may not be voted or transferred. They are included in the table because in certain circumstances they will be paid in the form of Common Stock within 60 days after a director leaves the Board. |
(4) |
Beneficial ownership includes 14,385 shares held by or on behalf of family members of certain directors or executive officers; 21,901 shares of Mr. Baker, indirectly held in a foundation in which he has no economic interest but has voting authority and/or power of disposition; 145,350 shares of Mr. Baker, 46,653 shares of Mr. Handley, and 6,935 shares of Mr. MacLennan held in trusts over which they or an immediate family member have voting authority and/or power of disposition; 32,373 shares held for executive officers in Company-sponsored employee benefit plans as of the last plan reports; and 3,061,439 shares to which these persons have the right to acquire beneficial ownership within 60 days of March 6, 2018, including, in the case of retirement-eligible officers, options vesting upon retirement from the Company. |
(5) |
Mr. Larson is the Business Manager of Cascade Investment, L.L.C. (“Cascade”), an entity owned by William H. Gates III, and the chief investment officer for Mr. Gates. As the Business Manager of Cascade, Mr. Larson may be deemed to have shared voting and investment power with respect to 28,495,893 shares of Ecolab Common Stock held by Cascade, and as the chief investment officer for Mr. Gates, he may be deemed to have voting and investment power with respect to 4,366,425 shares of Ecolab Common Stock held by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust (the “Trust”). Mr. Larson disclaims beneficial ownership of any shares held by Cascade or the Trust. |
12 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Corporate Governance Materials and Code of Conduct
Our Company is managed under the overall direction of our Board of Directors for the benefit of all stockholders. Written materials concerning policies of our Board of Directors, corporate governance principles and corporate ethics practices, including our Code of Conduct as last amended in 2012, are available on our website at www.investor.ecolab.com/corporate-governance/code-of-conduct.
We intend to promptly disclose on our website should there be any amendments to, or waivers by the Board of Directors of, the Code of Conduct.
Under our Corporate Governance Principles, the preferable size of the Board is between 11 and 15 members, in order to facilitate effective discussion and decision-making, adequate staffing of Board Committees, and a desired mix of diversified experience and background. Our Board of Directors currently consists of 13 members. As described on page 23 under Proposal 1: Election of Directors, 13 nominees, if elected, will serve a one-year term ending as of the 2019 Annual Meeting expected to be held on May 2, 2019.
Our Board of Directors is led by Douglas M. Baker, Jr., our Chairman, who is also our Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Baker has served as our Chief Executive Officer and as a director since 2004, and he was elected Chairman in 2006.
As stated in our Corporate Governance Principles, the Board believes that it is best not to have a fixed policy on whether the offices of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer are to be held by one person or two. In May 2017, the Board determined that its current board leadership structure remains appropriate and best serves the interests of stockholders at this time. In making that annual determination, the Board considered numerous factors, including the benefits to the decision-making process with a leader who is both Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; the significant operating experience and qualifications of Mr. Baker; the importance of deep Ecolab knowledge in exercising business judgment in leading the Board; the size and complexity of our business; the significant business experience and tenure of our directors; and the qualifications and role of our Lead Director.
In accordance with our Corporate Governance Principles, the independent directors, after recommendation of the Governance Committee, appointed Jeffrey M. Ettinger as Lead Director in May 2017. Mr. Ettinger has extensive public company board experience. Mr. Ettinger also is independent and has considerable knowledge of our business. Specific responsibilities of the Lead Director, as enumerated in our Corporate Governance Principles, include:
· |
presiding over meetings of the Board at which the Chairman is not present, including executive sessions of the independent directors; |
· |
acting as a liaison between the Chairman and the independent directors; |
· |
reviewing and approving information sent to the Board; |
· |
reviewing and approving meeting agendas for the Board; |
· |
reviewing and approving meeting schedules to assure that there is sufficient time for discussion of all agenda items; |
· |
at the discretion of the Lead Director, calling meetings of the independent directors; and |
· |
if requested by significant stockholders, ensuring that he or she is available for consultation and direct communication. |
Mr. Baker works closely with Mr. Ettinger to ensure the smooth and effective operation of the Board.
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
13 |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Board’s Role in Risk Oversight
The Board of Directors, in exercising its overall responsibility to direct the business and affairs of the Company, has established various processes and procedures with respect to risk management. First, annually as a core agenda item of the full Board, management presents to the Board a comprehensive and detailed risk assessment of the Company after following a vigorous enterprise risk review and analysis. Pursuant to the risk assessment, the Company has categorized the most relevant risks as follows: strategic, operating, reporting and compliance. As part of the annual risk assessment, the Board determines whether any of the Company’s overall risk management processes or control procedures requires modification or enhancement.
Strategic risk, which relates to the Company properly defining and achieving its high-level goals and mission, and operating risk, which relates to the effective and efficient use of resources and pursuit of opportunities, are regularly monitored and managed by the full Board through the Board’s regular and consistent review of the Company’s operating performance and strategic plan. For example, at each of the Board’s five regularly scheduled meetings throughout the year, management provided the Board presentations on the Company’s various business units as well as the Company’s performance as a whole. Agenda items were included for significant developments as appropriate, for example, significant acquisitions, important market developments and senior management succession. Pursuant to the Board’s established monitoring procedures, Board approval is required for the Company’s strategic plan and annual plan which are reported on by management at each Board meeting. Similarly, significant transactions, such as acquisitions and financings, are brought to the Board for approval.
Reporting risk, which relates to the reliability of the Company’s financial reporting, and compliance risk, which relates to the Company’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations, are primarily overseen by the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee meets at least six times per year and, pursuant to its charter and core agendas, receives input directly from management as well as from the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, regarding the Company’s financial reporting process, internal controls and public filings. The Committee also receives regular updates from the Company’s General Counsel and the Chief Compliance Officer regarding any Code of Conduct issues or legal compliance concerns and annually receives a summary of all Code of Conduct incidents during the preceding year from the Chief Compliance Officer. See “Board Committees – Audit Committee” on page 15 for further information on how the Audit Committee monitors, and assists the Board of Directors’ oversight of, reporting and compliance risks.
The Company believes that its leadership structure, discussed in detail above, supports the risk oversight function of the Board. While the Company has a combined Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, our Lead Director has substantial and clearly delineated authority pursuant to our Corporate Governance Principles, strong directors chair the various Board Committees involved in risk oversight, there is open communication between management and directors, and all directors are actively involved in the risk oversight function.
The Compensation Committee has established an annual process and criteria for assessing risk in our compensation programs and has directed management to apply that process and criteria to all compensation plans and practices that have the potential to give rise to behavior that creates risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company and to report the results to the Compensation Committee. As part of the process in 2017, the Company took the following steps to complete the assessment: (1) we agreed on a materiality framework for determining which compensation plans and practices to review; (2) we inventoried plans and practices that fell within the materiality framework; (3) we reviewed the identified plans and practices against our evaluation framework established in consultation with the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant, Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FW Cook”); (4) we identified factors, processes or procedures in place which may mitigate any risks in identified plans and practices; and (5) the Compensation Committee reviewed the results of the analysis with FW Cook. Our risk assessment revealed that our compensation programs do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. In making this determination, we took into account the compensation mix for our employees as well as various risk control and mitigation features of our programs, including varied and balanced performance targets, review procedures for incentive pay calculations, appropriate incentive payout caps, the Company’s rights to cancel incentive awards for employee misconduct, discretionary authority of the Compensation Committee to reduce award pay-outs, internal controls around customer and distributor pricing and contract terms, our stock ownership guidelines, prohibition on hedging Company stock and our compensation recovery (“clawback”) policy.
14 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
There were six meetings of the Board of Directors during the year ended December 31, 2017. Each incumbent director attended at least 75% of all Board meetings and meetings held by all Committees on which he or she served. Overall attendance at Board and Committee meetings was 95%. Directors are expected, but are not required, to attend our Annual Meeting of Stockholders. All of the directors then serving who were continuing to serve following the meeting attended last year’s Annual Meeting.
Our By-Laws permit the Board of Directors to designate Committees, each comprised of three or more directors, to assist the Board in carrying out its duties. The Board annually reviews its Committee structure as well as the Charter and composition of each Committee and makes modifications as necessary. The Charters for the Board’s five standing Committees - Audit, Compensation, Finance, Governance and Safety, Health and Environment - were reviewed and approved by the Board in May 2017. The Charters of each of our Committees are available on our website at www.investor.ecolab.com/corporate-governance. The separately designated standing Audit Committee meets the requirements of Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act. The members of the Audit, Compensation and Governance Committees meet the “independence” and other requirements established by the rules and regulations of the SEC, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “IRS Code”), the New York Stock Exchange and our Board, as applicable.
The Committee fulfills, and assists the Board of Directors’ oversight of, its responsibilities to monitor: (i) the quality and integrity of our consolidated financial statements and management’s financial control of operations; (ii) the qualifications, independence and performance of the independent accountants; (iii) the role and performance of the internal audit function; (iv) our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; and (v) our cybersecurity program and related risks. The Committee meets regularly and privately with our management and internal auditors and with our independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
A report of the Audit Committee is found under the heading “Audit Committee Report” at page 64.
The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is “independent” and meets the independence and other requirements of Sections 303A.02 and 303A.07(b) of the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, and Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act, as well as of our Board. The Board has determined that each of Mses. McKibben and Reich and Messrs. Casale and MacLennan is an “audit committee financial expert” under the SEC’s rules and should be so designated. Further, the Board has determined, in its business judgment, that each of Mses. McKibben and Reich and Messrs. Casale and MacLennan has “accounting and related financial management expertise” and that each member of the Audit Committee is “financially literate” under the New York Stock Exchange’s listing standards.
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
15 |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
· |
Compensation Committee – The Compensation Committee members are Messrs. Biller, Chazen (Vice Chair), Ettinger, Higgins and Zillmer (Chair). The Committee met five times during 2017. The principal functions of this Committee are to: (i) review and approve or recommend to the Board, as applicable, with respect to the establishment, amendment and administration of any compensation plans, benefits plans, severance arrangements and long-term incentives for directors and any executive officers (including the CEO); (ii) review and approve our overall compensation policy and annual executive salary plan, including CEO compensation; and (iii) administer our director stock option and deferred compensation plans, executive and employee stock incentive plans, stock purchase plans, cash incentive programs and stock retention and ownership guidelines. The Committee may not delegate its primary responsibilities with respect to overseeing executive officer compensation. In accordance with the terms of our 2010 Stock Incentive Plan, the Committee has delegated to the CEO (in his capacity as a director) the authority to grant long-term incentives to employees who are not officers or directors, subject to specified thresholds and applicable law. A report by the Committee is located on page 28 of this Proxy Statement. |
To assist the Committee in the design and review of the executive and director compensation programs, the Committee has selected and retained FW Cook, an independent compensation consulting firm, which reports directly to the Committee. As requested from time to time on behalf of the Committee, FW Cook provides the Committee with market data regarding various components of executive and director compensation, reviews the methodology on which compensation is based and designed, and informs the Committee of market trends in executive and director compensation. FW Cook performs no services for us other than those performed on behalf of the Committee.
The Committee has considered the independence of FW Cook in light of SEC rules and New York Stock Exchange listing standards. In connection with this process, the Committee has reviewed, among other items, a letter from FW Cook addressing the independence of FW Cook and the members of the consulting team serving the Committee, including the following factors: (i) other services provided to us by FW Cook; (ii) fees paid by us as a percentage of FW Cook’s total revenue; (iii) policies or procedures of FW Cook that are designed to prevent conflicts of interest; (iv) any business or personal relationships between the senior advisor of the consulting team and any member of the Committee; (v) any Ecolab stock owned by the senior advisor; and (vi) any business or personal relationships between our executive officers and the senior advisor. The Committee discussed these considerations and concluded that the work performed by FW Cook and its senior advisor involved in the engagement did not raise any conflict of interest.
The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Compensation Committee meets the independence requirements of the SEC (including Rule 16b-3), the New York Stock Exchange, and Section 162(m) of the IRS Code and of our Board.
· |
Finance Committee – The current Finance Committee members are Mses. McKibben and Vautrinot and Messrs. Biller (Chair), Chazen and Larson (Vice Chair). The Committee met six times during 2017. The principal functions of this Committee are to review and make recommendations to the Board concerning: (i) management’s financial and tax policies and standards; (ii) our financing requirements, including the evaluation of management’s proposals concerning funding to meet such requirements; (iii) share repurchases and dividends; (iv) our capital expenditure budget; (v) adequacy of insurance coverage; and (vi) our use of derivatives to limit financial risk. The Committee also evaluates specific acquisition, divestiture and capital expenditure projects from a financial standpoint and reviews the financial impact of our significant retirement plans. |
· |
Governance Committee – The Governance Committee members are Ms. Beck and Messrs. Casale (Vice Chair), Ettinger (Chair), MacLennan and Zillmer. The Committee met four times during 2017. Certain functions of the Governance Committee are described starting on page 8 of this Proxy Statement under the heading “Director Nomination Process.” In addition, the principal functions of this Committee include: (i) lead the annual review of Board performance and effectiveness; (ii) review the Board’s organizational structure and operations (including appointing a lead director for executive sessions of non-management directors) and its relationship to senior management; (iii) review issues of senior management succession; (iv) lead the annual Chief Executive Officer performance review and oversee the evaluation process for senior management; (v) review Certificate of Incorporation, By-Law or stockholder rights plan issues or changes in fundamental corporate charter provisions; (vi) review various corporate governance matters (including any necessary modifications to the Corporate Governance Principles); (vii) review and recommend to the Board with respect to director independence determinations and review, approve or ratify reportable related-person transactions; (viii) receive reports from management with regard to relevant social responsibility issues and report to the Board as appropriate; (ix) review our Company’s efforts to achieve its affirmative action and diversity goals; (x) review director orientation, training and continuing education; (xi) review our political contributions policy as well as our corporate contributions; and (xii) undertake special projects which do not fall within the jurisdiction of other committees of the Board. |
16 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Governance Committee meets the “independence” requirements of the SEC, the New York Stock Exchange and of our Board.
· |
Safety, Health and Environment Committee – The members of the Safety, Health and Environment Committee are Mses. Beck (Chair) and Reich and Messrs. Baker, Higgins (Vice Chair) and Larson. The Committee met four times during 2017. This Committee monitors compliance with applicable safety, health and environmental (“SHE”) laws and regulations. The principle functions of this Committee include: (i) review SHE policies, programs and practices, SHE risks, SHE statistics, pending SHE matters, security risks and industry best practices; (ii) review regulatory, environmental and health and safety trends, issues and concerns which affect or could affect our SHE practices; (iii) review the implementation of our SHE practices and related compliance with applicable policies; and (iv) review our Sustainability Report. |
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
The Compensation Committee is comprised of five non-employee, independent directors: Messrs. Biller, Chazen (Vice Chair), Ettinger, Higgins, and Zillmer (Chair). No member of the Compensation Committee is or was formerly an officer or an employee of the Company or had any related person transaction required to be disclosed in which the Company was a participant during the last fiscal year. In addition, no executive officer of the Company serves on the compensation committee or board of directors of a company for which any of the Company’s directors serves as an executive officer.
RELATED-PERSON TRANSACTIONS
The Governance Committee of the Board of Directors is responsible for reviewing, approving or ratifying transactions in excess of $120,000 with the Company’s executive officers or directors, including their immediate family members, or any greater than 5% stockholder known to us. Our practices and procedures for identifying transactions with related persons are located in the charter of the Governance Committee. The Governance Committee considers the related person’s relationship to the Company and interest in the transaction; the material facts of the transaction, including the proposed aggregate value of such transaction; the benefits to the Company of the proposed related-person transaction; if applicable, the availability of other sources of comparable products or services; an assessment of whether the proposed related-person transaction is on terms that are comparable to the terms available to an unrelated third party or to employees; and such other factors and information as the Governance Committee may deem appropriate. The Governance Committee determined that there were no such transactions with related persons during 2017, nor any currently anticipated transactions.
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
17 |
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION FOR 2017
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION FOR 2017
The following table summarizes the compensation that our non-employee directors received during 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Name |
|
Fees Earned or |
|
Stock |
|
Option |
|
Total |
|||||||
Barbara J. Beck |
|
120,000 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
276,380 | |||||||
Leslie S. Biller |
|
120,000 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
276,380 | |||||||
Carl M. Casale |
|
115,000 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
271,380 | |||||||
Stephen I. Chazen |
|
108,434 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
264,814 | |||||||
Jeffrey M. Ettinger |
|
131,370 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
287,750 | |||||||
Jerry A. Grundhofer(4) |
|
42,938 |
|
34,350 |
|
0 |
|
77,288 | |||||||
Arthur J. Higgins |
|
105,000 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
261,380 | |||||||
Michael Larson |
|
105,000 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
261,380 | |||||||
Jerry W. Levin(4) |
|
49,794 |
|
34,350 |
|
0 |
|
84,144 | |||||||
David W. MacLennan |
|
115,000 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
271,380 | |||||||
Tracy B. McKibben |
|
115,000 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
271,380 | |||||||
Victoria J. Reich |
|
125,000 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
281,380 | |||||||
Suzanne M. Vautrinot |
|
115,000 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
271,380 | |||||||
John J. Zillmer |
|
118,187 |
|
100,000 |
|
56,380 |
|
274,567 |
(1) |
Represents annual retainer of $105,000 (or a pro rata portion thereof) earned during 2017, plus additional fees paid to the Lead Director, the respective Chairs of Board Committees and the members of the Audit Committee; includes retainer and fees, if any, deferred at the election of directors pursuant to the 2001 Non-Employee Director Stock Option and Deferred Compensation Plan (the “2001 Plan”). The features of the 2001 Plan are described in the Summary below. The dollar amount of retainer and fees deferred by applicable directors during 2017 is as follows: Ms. Beck, $120,000; Mr. Biller $120,000; Mr. Chazen, $54,217; Mr. Ettinger, $131,370; Mr. Grundhofer, $42,938; and Mr. Higgins, $105,000. |
(2) |
Represents the crediting by the Company of $100,000 (or a pro rata portion thereof) to a deferred stock unit account under the 2001 Plan during 2017, which also represents the full grant date fair value of each stock unit award under FASB ASC Topic 718. The features of the deferred stock unit account are described under the Summary below. The aggregate number of stock units held by each non-employee director is set forth under footnote (3) to the “Security Ownership – Executive Officers and Directors” table at page 12. |
(3) |
Represents the full grant date fair value of each option award, computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The value has been determined by application of the lattice (binomial)-pricing model, based upon the terms of the option grant to directors. Director stock options granted in May 2017 to directors have a ten-year contractual exercise term and vest 25% at the end of each three-month period following the date of grant. Key assumptions include: risk-free rate of return, expected life of the option, expected stock price volatility and expected dividend yield. The specific assumptions used in the valuation of these options are summarized in the table below: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date |
|
Risk Free Rate |
|
Expected Life |
|
Expected Volatility |
|
Expected Dividend Yield |
05/04/2017 |
|
2.05% |
|
6.14 years |
|
23.25% |
|
1.18% |
As of December 31, 2017, the aggregate number of stock options held by each director named in the table above is as follows: Ms. Beck, 15,900; Mr. Biller, 34,000; Mr. Casale, 9,900; Mr. Chazen, 12,100; Mr. Ettinger, 6,500; Mr. Grundhofer, 18,100; Mr. Higgins, 24,600; Mr. Larson, 16,600; Mr. Levin, 575; Mr. MacLennan, 5,300; Ms. McKibben, 6,900; Ms. Reich, 26,800; Ms. Vautrinot, 9,400; and Mr. Zillmer, 34,000.
(4) |
Messrs. Grundhofer and Levin retired from the Board effective May 2017, and each received a pro-rated portion of compensation for 2017. |
18 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION FOR 2017
During 2017, members of the Board of Directors who are not employees of the Company were entitled to receive base annual compensation valued at $260,000 as follows:
· |
An annual retainer of $105,000; |
· |
$100,000 annually in the form of stock units (which are described below); and |
· |
Stock options having a grant date fair value of approximately $55,000. |
We also paid the following supplemental retainers to the Lead Director, committee chairs and members of the Audit Committee:
|
|
|
|
|
Amount ($)
|
Lead Director |
|
25,000 |
Audit Committee Chair |
|
20,000 |
Compensation Committee Chair |
|
20,000 |
Finance Committee Chair |
|
15,000 |
Governance Committee Chair |
|
15,000 |
Safety, Health and Environment Committee Chair |
|
15,000 |
Audit Committee Member |
|
10,000 |
The base annual compensation of $260,000 per year, excluding committee retainers, is within the median range of our competitive market, as is the total equity compensation of $155,000 comprising a portion of such base. For director compensation, we define our competitive market as a group of 19 comparison companies for compensation benchmarking and the median range as within 10% of the median for total annual director compensation. The companies comprising our comparison group are the same as the executive compensation comparison group and are set forth under the heading “Compensation Benchmarking” found under the Compensation Discussion and Analysis of this Proxy Statement at page 35.
All reasonable travel and other expenses incurred by directors on behalf of Ecolab were reimbursed.
The features of the 2001 Plan are as follows:
· |
Non-employee directors may elect to defer some, or all, of the cash portion of their annual retainer and additional fees in a cash account or a deferred stock unit account until cessation of Board service. Amounts deferred in the cash account earn interest at market rates and amounts deferred in the stock unit account are credited with dividend equivalents. Upon cessation of Board service, deferred amounts are paid in a lump sum or in equal installments over a maximum of ten years as elected by the director, with payments from the interest-bearing account made in cash and payments from the stock unit account made in shares of our Common Stock. |
· |
Director stock option grants are made on the date of the Annual Meeting of Stockholders and have an exercise price which is the average of the high and low market price on the date of grant. We believe that the use of the average of the high and low market price on the date of the grant removes same-day stock volatility. Director stock options vest 25% at the end of each three-month period following the grant date and will terminate 10 years after the grant date. If a non-employee director ceases to serve as a director of the Company for any reason, then each of his or her stock options will, to the extent it was already exercisable, remain exercisable for the shorter of the remaining term of the stock option or five years after the date service as a director ceased. The stock options granted to directors under the 2001 Plan may be transferred to defined family members or legal entities established for their benefit. We do not have a program, plan or practice to time stock option grants to directors in coordination with the release of material non-public information. |
· |
The 2001 Plan is the only plan or arrangement under which share-based compensation is provided to our non-employee directors. |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
19 |
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION FOR 2017
· |
The aggregate grant date fair value of 2001 Plan awards denominated in shares that may be made to any non-employee director of the Company during any calendar year may not exceed $800,000, excluding such awards made at the election of a director to defer the receipt of cash compensation otherwise payable for services as a director. |
Stock Retention and Ownership Guidelines
We have in place stock retention and ownership guidelines to encourage our directors to accumulate a significant ownership stake so they are vested in maximizing long-term stockholder returns. Our guidelines provide that our directors own Company stock with a market value of at least five times the annual retainer. Until the stock ownership guideline is met, the director is expected to retain 100% of all after-tax profit shares from stock option exercises. For purposes of complying with our guidelines, stock is not considered owned if subject to an unexercised stock option. Shares owned outright, legally or beneficially, by a director or his or her immediate family members residing in the same household and deferred stock units in the director’s deferral plan count towards meeting the guidelines. Our directors may not pledge shares or enter into any risk hedging arrangements with respect to Company stock. Our directors are in compliance with our guidelines by either having achieved the ownership guideline or, if the guideline is not yet achieved, by retaining 100% of all after-tax profit shares from any stock option exercises.
The Committee reviews our compensation program for non-employee directors annually; however, it is our general practice to consider adjustments to our program every other year. Based upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee's independent consultant, FW Cook, we made the following changes effective as of January 1, 2018:
· |
Increased the annual retainer from $105,000 to $110,000; and |
· |
Increased the annual deferred stock unit award from $100,000 to $115,000. |
We retained all of the other components of our non-employee director compensation program, including the annual stock option grant with a grant date fair value of $55,000 and the retainers for the Lead Director, committee chairs and Audit Committee members, without change. The changes to the annual retainer and stock unit awards increase total annual director compensation from $260,000 per year to $280,000 per year, excluding committee retainers, which is within the median range of our competitive market as previously defined at page 19 of this Proxy Statement.
20 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE STANDARDS AND DETERMINATIONS
DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE STANDARDS AND DETERMINATIONS
Pursuant to the Board of Directors’ policy, a director is not independent if:
· |
The director is, or has been within the last three years, an employee of the Company, or an immediate family member is, or has been within the last three years, an executive officer, of the Company. |
· |
The director has received, or has an immediate family member who has received, during any twelve-month period within the last three years, more than $120,000 in direct compensation from the Company, other than director and committee fees and pension or other forms of deferred compensation for prior service (provided such compensation is not contingent in any way on continued service). |
· |
(A) The director is a current partner or employee of a firm that is the Company’s internal or external auditor; (B) the director has an immediate family member who is a current partner of such a firm; (C) the director has an immediate family member who is a current employee of such a firm and personally works on the Company’s audit; or (D) the director or an immediate family member was within the last three years a partner or employee of such a firm and personally worked on the Company’s audit within that time. |
· |
The director or an immediate family member is, or has been within the last three years, employed as an executive officer of another company where any of the Company's present executive officers at the same time serves or served on that company's compensation committee. |
· |
The director is a current employee, or an immediate family member is a current executive officer, of a company that has made payments to, or received payments from, the Company for property or services in an amount which, in any of the last three fiscal years, exceeds the greater of $1 million, or 2% of such other company's consolidated gross revenues. |
The Board of Directors’ independence policy is also available on our website at www.investor.ecolab.com/corporate-governance/board-of-directors.
In February 2018, the Governance Committee undertook a review of director independence by examining the nature and magnitude of transactions and relationships during 2017, 2016 and 2015 between each director serving during 2017 or director nominee, as the case may be (or any member of his or her immediate family or the company he or she is employed by and its subsidiaries and affiliates), and the Company, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Appropriate scrutiny is given to any situation which could be reasonably considered a material relationship. Both the existence and nature of the relationship are considered. The relationships include, among others, commercial, industrial, banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable and familial relationships. The Company also endeavors to identify, quantify and evaluate ordinary course commercial transactions between the Company and any company that employs a director or director nominee, including subsidiaries and affiliates of the company. In this regard, the Board’s Governance Committee has reviewed the following transactions and determined that the transactions do not exceed the Board’s categorical “independence” standards described above or adversely affect the director for “independence” status as the combined impact of the transactions is immaterial to the Company and the respective organizations.
· |
Mr. MacLennan serves as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cargill, Incorporated. During 2017, Ecolab’s sales to Cargill and its affiliates were approximately $29 million, or less than 0.03% of Cargill’s revenues, and Ecolab’s purchases from Cargill and its affiliates were approximately $6 million, or less than 0.006% of Cargill’s revenues. Ecolab believes all sales to Cargill were made in the ordinary course, at arm’s length, and at prices and on terms customarily available. Further, Ecolab believes Mr. MacLennan had no personal interest in, or received any personal benefit from, such commercial transactions. |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
21 |
DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE STANDARDS AND DETERMINATIONS
Based on the review of the Governance Committee, the Board of Directors has determined that the following directors, including those on the slate of nominees for election to the Board at this year’s Annual Meeting (other than Mr. Baker), are, and have been since January 1, 2017, or the date which they became a director of the Company if later than January 1, 2017, independent in accordance with the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, the rules and regulations of the SEC, applicable law, and the Board’s “independence” policy: Barbara J. Beck, Leslie S. Biller, Carl M. Casale, Stephen I. Chazen, Jeffrey M. Ettinger, Jerry A. Grundhofer, Arthur J. Higgins, Michael Larson, Jerry W. Levin, David W. MacLennan, Tracy B. McKibben, Victoria J. Reich, Suzanne M. Vautrinot and John J. Zillmer.
The Board determined that Douglas M. Baker, Jr. is not “independent,” due to his status as the current Chief Executive Officer.
22 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Our Board of Directors currently consists of 13 members. The 13 nominees, if elected, will serve a one-year term ending as of the 2019 Annual Meeting expected to be held on May 2, 2019.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the Governance Committee, Mses. Beck, McKibben, Reich and Vautrinot and Messrs. Baker, Biller, Casale, Chazen, Ettinger, Higgins, Larson, MacLennan and Zillmer were nominated for election as Directors. The Board of Directors has no reason to believe that any of the named nominees is not available or will not serve if elected.
Board of Directors’ Recommendation – The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR the election of the 13 nominees named in this Proxy Statement. Unless a contrary choice is specified, proxies solicited by our Board of Directors will be voted FOR each of the nominees named in this Proxy Statement.
The following information with regard to business experience, qualifications and directorships has been furnished by the respective director nominees or obtained from our records.
Nominees for Election to the Board of Directors (Term Ending in May 2019)
DOUGLAS M. BAKER, JR. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Years of Service: 14 Board Committees: Safety, Health and Environment |
|
President in December 2011 upon completion of the Nalco merger. Prior to joining Ecolab in 1989, Mr. Baker was employed by The Procter & Gamble Company in various marketing and management positions. Qualifications Mr. Baker has more than 25 years of Ecolab marketing, sales and general management experience, including leadership roles in Ecolab’s Institutional, Europe and Kay businesses before becoming Ecolab’s Chief Operating Officer in 2002 and Chief Executive Officer in 2004. He has deep and direct knowledge of Ecolab’s businesses and operations. In addition, his experience at The Procter & Gamble Company included various marketing and management positions, including in the institutional market in which Ecolab operates. As a director of two other public companies, Mr. Baker also has extensive corporate governance experience. Other directorships held during the past five years Lead Director of Target Corporation and director of U.S. Bancorp (retiring April 2018).
|
||
Biography Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Ecolab. Director of Ecolab since 2004. Member of the Safety, Health and Environment Committee.
Since joining Ecolab in 1989, Mr. Baker has held various leadership positions within our Institutional, Europe and Kay operations. Mr. Baker was named Ecolab’s President and Chief Operating Officer in August 2002, was promoted to President and Chief Executive Officer in July 2004, and added the position of Chairman of the Board in May 2006. Mr. Baker relinquished the office of |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
BARBARA J. BECK |
|||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Years of Service: 10 Board Committees: Safety, Health and Environment Governance |
|
France), the Middle East and Africa. She previously served as Executive Vice President of Manpower’s U.S. and Canada business unit from 2002 to 2005. Prior to joining Manpower, Ms. Beck was an executive of Sprint, a global communications company, serving in various operating and leadership roles for 15 years. Qualifications Ms. Beck has extensive North American and European general management and operational experience, including as a current CEO, allowing her to contribute to Ecolab’s strategic vision particularly as it relates to Europe, the Middle East and Africa. With her Manpower knowledge of the impact of labor market trends on global and local economies combined with her knowledge of employment services, which tends to be a leading economic indicator, she provides timely insight into near-term projections of general economic activity. As an executive at Sprint, Ms. Beck obtained experience in the information technology field which is relevant to Ecolab’s development of its ERP systems as well as field automation tools. Other directorships held during the past five years None.
|
||
Biography Chief Executive Officer, Learning Care Group, Inc., a leading for-profit early education/child care provider in North America. Director of Ecolab since 2008. Chair of the Safety, Health and Environment Committee and member of the Governance Committee.
Prior to joining Learning Care Group in 2011 as Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Beck spent nine years as an executive of Manpower Inc., a world leader in the employment services industry. From 2006 to 2011, Ms. Beck was President of Manpower’s EMEA operations, overseeing Europe (excluding |
|||||
|
|
|
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
23 |
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
LESLIE S. BILLER |
|||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Years of Service: 20 Board Committees: Finance Compensation |
|
with Wells Fargo & Company in November 1998. Mr. Biller retired as Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of Wells Fargo & Company in October 2002. He became Chairman of Sterling Financial Corporation in 2010 and served in that capacity until its merger with Umpqua Corporation in April 2014. Qualifications Throughout his career in banking, including as Vice Chair and Chief Operating Officer of Wells Fargo, Mr. Biller gained extensive public company senior management and board experience. Having spent a significant part of his career in international assignments in Europe, he is familiar with operating businesses in that region, which allows him to provide advice and guidance relevant to our significant European operations. He has extensive knowledge and experience in banking, treasury and finance, which enables him to provide insight and advice on financing, treasury and enterprise risk management areas. As a chemical engineer, he is familiar with chemicals manufacturing and distribution, which allows him to relate well to our operations. Other directorships held during the past five years Formerly a director of Sterling Financial Corporation. |
||
Biography Chief Executive Officer of Harborview Capital, a private investment and consultive company. Director of Ecolab since 1997. Chair of the Finance Committee and member of the Compensation Committee.
After holding various positions with Citicorp and Bank of America, Mr. Biller joined Norwest Corporation in 1987 as Executive Vice President in charge of strategic planning and acquisitions for Norwest Banking. He was appointed Executive Vice President in charge of South Central Community Banking in 1990. Mr. Biller served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Norwest Corporation from February 1997 until its merger |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
CARL M. CASALE |
|||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Years of Service: 4 Board Committees: Governance Audit |
|
through sales, strategy, marketing and technology-related positions before being named Chief Financial Officer in 2009. Qualifications As the former Chief Executive Officer of CHS, Mr. Casale has experience running a large diverse organization, which includes a significant energy business. In addition to his extensive industry experience, through his more than 25-year career at CHS and Monsanto and his experience as a director of other public companies, Mr. Casale possesses knowledge and experience in finance, international operations, sales, corporate management, strategy, public company governance and board practices. Mr. Casale is also familiar with our water and energy businesses, having served as a director of Nalco Holding Company from 2009 until Ecolab’s acquisition of Nalco in 2011. Other directorships held during the past five years Director of Syngenta AG. |
||
Biography Former President and Chief Executive Officer of CHS Inc., a leading integrated agricultural company. Vice Chair of the Governance Committee and member of the Audit Committee.
From 2011 to May 2017 Mr. Casale was President and Chief Executive Officer of CHS. Previously he spent 26 years with Monsanto Company, advancing |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
STEPHEN I. CHAZEN |
|||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Years of Service: 5 Board Committees: Compensation Finance
|
|
Corporate Development and Chief Financial Officer. Prior to joining Occidental in 1994, Mr. Chazen was a Managing Director in Corporate Finance and Mergers and Acquisitions at Merrill Lynch. Qualifications With more than 20 years of senior management experience in the oil and gas industry, Mr. Chazen has significant direct experience in the energy sector, one of Ecolab’s most significant end markets. As the President and Chief Executive Officer of TPG Pace Energy Holdings and the former Chief Executive Officer of Occidental, Mr. Chazen is intimately familiar with the competitive landscape and trends within the energy sector as well as the regulatory framework. In addition to his important industry experience, through his more than 30-year career at TPG Pace Energy Holdings, Occidental and Merrill Lynch and his experience as a director of other public companies, Mr. Chazen possesses knowledge and experience in corporate management, strategy, mergers and acquisitions, public company governance and board practices. Other directorships held during the past five years Director of TPG Pace Energy Holdings Corp., Occidental Petroleum Corporation and The Williams Companies, Inc. |
||
Biography Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of TPG Pace Energy Holdings Corp. Director of Ecolab since 2013. Vice Chair of the Compensation Committee and member of the Finance Committee.
Prior to joining TPG Pace Energy Holdings in February 2017, Mr. Chazen had a 23-year career at Occidental Petroleum Corporation holding executive positions of increasing responsibility. From 2011 to 2016 he served as Chief Executive Officer, from 2007 to 2015 as President, from 2010 to 2011 as President and Chief Operating Officer, from 2007 to 2010 as President and Chief Financial Officer, and from 1999 to 2007 as Executive Vice President – |
|||||
|
|
|
24 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
JEFFREY M. ETTINGER |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Years of Service: 3 Lead Director Board Committees: Governance Compensation |
|
Corporation, Mr. Ettinger served as President of Jennie-O Turkey Store, the largest subsidiary of Hormel Foods, and in various other positions including Treasurer, Product Manager for Hormel® chili products, and corporate and senior attorney. Qualifications With more than 25 years of experience with Hormel Foods, a public food products company with global operations, Mr. Ettinger brings directly relevant operational experience in one of Ecolab’s major end-markets. From his experience as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of a Fortune 500 public company with global operations, Mr. Ettinger possesses executive leadership attributes and provides relevant insight and guidance with respect to numerous issues important to Ecolab, including public company governance, mergers and acquisitions and regulatory matters. Other directorships held during the past five years Director of The Toro Company. Formerly a director of Hormel Foods Corporation. |
Biography
During his 28-year career at Hormel, Mr. Ettinger held the offices of Chairman from 2006 to 2017, Chief Executive Officer from 2006 to 2016 and President from 2005 to 2015. Prior to being named President of Hormel Foods |
|||
|
|
|
|
ARTHUR J. HIGGINS |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Years of Service: 8 Board Committees: Safety, Health and Environment Compensation |
|
including serving as President of the Pharmaceutical Products Division from 1998 to 2001. He is a past member of the Board of Directors of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), of the Council of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) and President of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). Qualifications Mr. Higgins has extensive leadership experience in the global healthcare market. Through leadership positions with large healthcare developers and manufacturers in both the United States and Europe, Mr. Higgins has gained deep knowledge of the healthcare market and the strategies for developing and marketing products in this highly regulated area. This knowledge and industry background allows him to provide valuable insight to Ecolab’s growing Healthcare business, which is developing in both the U.S. and Europe. In addition, his global perspective from years of operating global businesses and his background in working with high growth companies fits well with Ecolab’s ambitions for global growth and provide him experiences from which to draw to advise Ecolab on strategies for sustainable growth. In his role as Chief Executive Officer of Bayer HealthCare, he gained significant exposure to enterprise risk management as well as quality and operating risk management necessary in a highly regulated industry such as healthcare. Other directorships held during the past five years Director of Depomed Inc. and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. Formerly a director of Endo International plc and Resverlogix Corp. |
Biography President and Chief Executive Officer and member of the Board of Directors of Depomed Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company. Director of Ecolab since 2010. Vice Chair of the Safety, Health and Environment Committee and member of the Compensation Committee.
Prior to joining Depomed in March 2017, Mr. Higgins was a Senior Advisor to Blackstone Healthcare Partners, the dedicated healthcare team of The Blackstone Group, from May 2010 to March 2017. He previously served at Bayer HealthCare AG as Chairman of the Board of Management from January 2006 to May 2010 and as Chairman of the Executive Committee from July 2004 to May 2010. Prior to that time, Mr. Higgins held the offices of Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from 2001 to 2004. Prior to joining Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Mr. Higgins spent 14 years with Abbott Laboratories, holding several executive leadership positions, |
|||
|
|
|
MICHAEL LARSON |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Years of Service: 6 Board Committees: Finance Safety, Health and Environment
|
|
Gates’ non-Microsoft investments as well as the investment assets of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust. Previously, Mr. Larson was at Harris Investment Management, Putnam Management Company and ARCO. Qualifications With more than 30 years of portfolio management experience, Mr. Larson has deep investment expertise and broad understanding of the capital markets, business cycles and capital efficiency and allocation practices. He also has served on several other public company boards providing him relevant corporate governance experience. In addition, as a professional investor and as the investment officer of Ecolab’s largest shareholder, Mr. Larson brings a long-term shareholder perspective to the Board. Other directorships held during the past five years Director of AutoNation, Inc., Republic Services, Inc. and Fomento Mexicano Economico, S.A.B. de C.V. In addition, he is Chairman of the Board of Trustees of two funds in the Western Asset Management fund complex. Formerly a director of Pan American Silver Corp. and Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. |
Biography Chief investment officer to William H. Gates III. Director of Ecolab since 2012. Vice Chair of the Finance Committee and member of the Safety, Health and Environment Committee.
Mr. Larson has been chief investment officer for Mr. Gates and the Business Manager of Cascade Investment, L.L.C., since 1994. He is responsible for Mr. |
|||
|
|
|
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
25 |
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
|
|
|
|
|
Years of Service: 3 Board Committees: Audit Governance
|
|
Officer and President from 2011 until his appointment as Chief Executive Officer in 2013. Prior to these roles, Mr. MacLennan held several other positions with Cargill, including Chief Financial Officer, President of Cargill Energy and Managing Director of the Value Investment Group. He has also held various management positions with US Bancorp Piper Jaffray and Goldberg Securities. Qualifications With more than 25 years of leadership experience at Cargill, Mr. MacLennan has developed significant leadership and strategic planning skills, as well as extensive knowledge and insight in corporate governance, risk management, financial management and global business practices. Other directorships held during the past five years Director of Cargill, Incorporated. Formerly a director and Governance Committee chair of C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. |
Biography Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cargill, Incorporated. Director of Ecolab since 2015. Vice Chair of the Audit Committee and member of the Governance Committee.
Mr. MacLennan has served as Chairman of the Board of Cargill since 2015 and as Chief Executive Officer since 2013. He held the offices of Chief Operating |
|||
|
|
|
|
TRACY B. MCKIBBEN |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Years of Service: 3 Board Committees: Audit Finance |
|
Director of European Economic Affairs and EU Relations and as Acting Senior Director for European Affairs. Before joining the National Security Council, she served in various senior advisory roles in the U.S. Department of Commerce from March 2001 to July 2003. Qualifications Ms. McKibben has more than 15 years of experience in the energy sector, with a focus on alternative energy, water and infrastructure. In this role and in her prior role at Citigroup, Ms. McKibben developed considerable strategic and financial experience advising energy companies and multinational corporations on strategic investments, M&A, and energy policy. In addition to her experience in the energy and financial sectors, Ms. McKibben has gained extensive public sector and international experience working at the U.S. Department of Commerce and within the National Security Council at The White House where she advised the President of the United States, Cabinet Secretaries and other senior officials on political, security, commercial and international trade issues. Other directorships held during the past five years Director of GlassBridge Enterprises, Inc. Formerly a director of ROI Acquisition Corp. II. |
Biography Founder and Chief Executive Officer of MAC Energy Advisors, LLC, an investment consulting company that provides integrated and innovative energy solutions to help clients utilize capital strategically around the globe. Director of Ecolab since 2015. Member of the Audit and Finance Committees.
Ms. McKibben has been the head of MAC Energy Advisors since its founding in 2010. From September 2007 to August 2009, she served as Managing Director and Head of Environmental Banking Strategy at Citigroup Global Markets. Prior to joining Citigroup, Ms. McKibben served in the National Security Council at the White House from July 2003 to August 2007 as |
|||
|
|
|
|
VICTORIA J. REICH |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Years of Service: 8 Board Committees: Audit Safety, Health and Environment |
|
Brunswick European Group, and previously as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Before joining Brunswick, Ms. Reich was employed for 17 years at General Electric Company in various financial management positions. Qualifications As a former Chief Financial Officer of a public company, Ms. Reich possesses relevant financial leadership experience with respect to all financial management disciplines relevant to Ecolab, including public reporting, strategic planning, treasury, IT and financial analysis. Her financial management background at Essendant, Brunswick and General Electric, combined with her experience in European general management at Brunswick, enables her to provide strategic input as well as financial discipline. Essendant operates a cleaning supplies distribution business which provided Ms. Reich familiarity with the institutional market, one of our largest end-markets. Other directorships held during the past five years Director of H&R Block, Inc. and Ingredion Incorporated. |
Biography Former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Essendant Inc. (formerly United Stationers Inc.), a broad line wholesale distributor of business products. Director of Ecolab since 2009. Chair of the Audit Committee and member of the Safety, Health and Environment Committee.
From 2007 to 2011 Ms. Reich was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Essendant Inc. Prior to joining Essendant, Ms. Reich spent ten years as an executive with Brunswick Corporation, last serving as President - |
|||
|
|
|
26 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
SUZANNE M. VAUTRINOT |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Years of Service: 4 Board Committees: Audit Finance
|
|
General Vautrinot was the Director of Plans and Policy, U.S. Cyber Command and the Special Assistant to the Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. On multiple occasions, she was selected by military leaders and White House officials to spearhead high-profile engagements. General Vautrinot is the recipient of the Symantec Cyber Award, Women in Aerospace Leadership Award, Aerospace Citation of Honor and the Presidential Award for Training. During her career, she has also been awarded numerous medals and commendations, including the Distinguished Service Medal. She was inducted into the National Academy of Engineering in 2017. Qualifications General Vautrinot brings a unique perspective to the Board with her 31-year military career. Having led large and complex organizations, she provides insights into the challenges facing large global organizations. As an expert in cyber security, she can advise Ecolab on appropriate protections for its networks. In addition, General Vautrinot has significant experience in strategic planning, organizational design and change management, which allows her to provide advice and insight to Ecolab as its business grows and develops. Other directorships held during the past five years Director of Symantec Corporation and Wells Fargo & Company. |
Biography President, Kilovolt Consulting Inc. Retired Major General of the U.S. Air Force. Director of Ecolab since 2014. Member of the Audit and Finance Committees.
General Vautrinot retired from the Air Force in 2013. During her 31-year career in the Air Force, she served in various assignments, including cyber operations, plans and policy, strategic security and space operations. General Vautrinot commanded at the squadron, group, wing and numbered Air Force levels, as well as the Air Force Recruiting Service. She has served on the Joint Staff, the staffs at major command headquarters and Air Force headquarters. From 2011 to 2013, she was Commander, 24th Air Force and Commander, Air Forces Cyber, where she was responsible for cyber defense operations. Prior to that, |
|||
|
|
|
JOHN J. ZILLMER |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Years of Service: 12 Board Committees: Compensation Governance
|
|
industry, most recently as Executive Vice President of ARAMARK Corporation, a provider of food, uniform and support services. During his eighteen-year career with ARAMARK, Mr. Zillmer served as President of ARAMARK’s Business Services division, the International division and the Food and Support Services group. Prior to joining ARAMARK, Mr. Zillmer was employed by Szabo Food Services until Szabo was acquired by ARAMARK in 1986. Qualifications As the former Chief Executive Officer of Univar and previously Allied Waste, Mr. Zillmer has experience leading both public and large private companies. With Univar, he became intimately familiar with the chemical market, including with respect to chemicals that Ecolab uses to manufacture its products. He also has extensive knowledge of the environmental aspects of chemicals manufacturing and distribution. His experience leading various ARAMARK operations has given him deep knowledge of the institutional market, particularly the contract catering segment, which is a large market for Ecolab. His roles on the boards of Reynolds American, Allied Waste and CSX Corporation have provided him with significant public company board experience. Other directorships held during the past five years Director of Veritiv Corp., Performance Food Group Company and CSX Corporation. Formerly a director of Reynolds American Inc. |
Biography Retired President and Chief Executive Officer of Univar Inc., a global distributor of industrial chemicals and related specialty services. Director of Ecolab since 2006. Chair of the Compensation Committee and member of the Governance Committee.
Mr. Zillmer joined Univar in 2009 as President and Chief Executive Officer. In 2012, he stepped down as President and CEO and became Executive Chairman until December 2012 when he retired from Univar. Prior to joining Univar, Mr. Zillmer served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Allied Waste Industries, a solid waste management business, from 2005 until the merger of Allied Waste with Republic Services, Inc. in December 2008. Before Allied Waste, Mr. Zillmer spent 30 years in the managed services |
|||
|
|
|
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
27 |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the following Compensation Discussion and Analysis of the Company with management. Based on their review and discussion, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors, and the Board has approved, the inclusion of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis in both the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, and the Company’s Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held May 3, 2018.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dated: February 23, 2018 |
Leslie S. Biller |
Arthur J. Higgins |
|
|
|
Stephen I. Chazen |
John J. Zillmer |
|
|
|
Jeffrey M. Ettinger |
|
|
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) provides information about the principles underlying our executive compensation programs and the key executive compensation decisions that were made for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (“2017”), including the most important factors relevant to those decisions. This CD&A is intended to provide additional context and background for the compensation earned by and awarded to the following named executive officers (“NEOs”) for 2017 as reported in the Summary Compensation Table which follows this discussion:
Douglas M. Baker, Jr. |
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
Daniel J. Schmechel |
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
Thomas W. Handley |
President and Chief Operating Officer |
Christophe Beck |
Executive Vice President and President – Global Nalco Water |
Michael A. Hickey |
Executive Vice President and President – Global Institutional |
The Company’s compensation programs enable us to attract and retain the leadership talent that is necessary to successfully manage our strong earnings growth and return on invested capital objectives, while balancing necessary investment in the businesses in order to achieve attractive, long-term shareholder returns. Our corporate short-term and long-term incentive plan performance measures are aligned with this strategy by utilizing growth in adjusted diluted earnings per share (hereinafter, “adjusted EPS,” unless the context otherwise requires) and adjusted return on invested capital (hereinafter, “adjusted ROIC,” unless the context otherwise requires), both as defined later in this CD&A. At the business unit level, we also incorporate business unit sales and operating income performance measures.
Business Environment
The Company achieved accelerating sales and earnings growth through 2017 as it drove new product introductions, new business wins and improved operating efficiency in a mixed market environment. Increased pricing was implemented to offset higher delivered product costs. Earnings per share (hereinafter “EPS”) leveraged the solid operating income growth, benefiting from lower interest expense, taxes and shares outstanding, to deliver the attractive EPS gain.
28 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
As a result of this business environment, performance under our annual incentive plan versus our pre-established performance goals were 98% of target for corporate performance and ranged from 61% to 96% of target for division performance, as illustrated below:
Performance under our 2015-2017 performance-based restricted stock unit grant cycle versus our pre-established adjusted ROIC performance goal was 100% of target, as illustrated below:
Compensation Actions
We took the following actions with respect to our NEOs in 2017:
Compensation Element |
2017 NEO Compensation Action |
||
Base salaries |
• |
With respect to NEOs who were employed by us in 2016 and 2017, base salaries increased between 3.2% and 4.2% and on average 3.7% versus 2016, excluding promotions |
|
Annual cash incentives |
• |
Annual cash incentive bonus payouts were between 73% and 100% of target, and averaged 91% of target |
|
|
• |
Annual cash incentive bonus payout for our CEO was at 100% of target |
|
Long-term incentives |
• |
Long-term equity incentive awards, consisting of stock options and performance-based restricted stock units (“PBRSUs”), were granted in the same proportion as prior years and were within the median range of our size-adjusted competitive market for each NEO |
|
|
• |
For the 2015 to 2017 PBRSU grant cycle, average award payouts were at 100% of target award opportunities |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
29 |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The charts below illustrate our Company’s actual performance relative to our pre-established performance goals as well as our actual award payouts as a percentage of target award opportunities for the annual cash and long-term incentive plans:
* The achievement of adjusted EPS of $4.69 per share actually aligned with a payout of 98% of target under the annual cash incentive plan. The payout was increased to 100% of the target which aligned with adjusted EPS of $4.70 per share. The $0.01 adjustment was made to offset the impact of the sale of the Company’s Equipment Care business on November 1, 2017, as the target level was based upon including a full year’s worth of Equipment Care results. See “Annual Cash Incentives – Performance Goals and Achievement – Corporate,” starting on page 38 for a further discussion of the adjustment.
*Adjusted ROIC is a non-GAAP financial measure that is described in the section starting on page 37 entitled “Adjustments to Reported Financial Results.”
30 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Compensation of our Chief Executive Officer
The compensation of our CEO is positioned within the median range of our compensation benchmark and is based on the same design elements and performance standards that are applicable to our other corporate officers. For 2017, the Compensation Committee determined to increase the CEO’s base salary by 4.2%, maintain his target annual incentive opportunity at 150% of base salary, and increase his long-term incentive opportunity from $9.5 million to $10 million (a 5.3% change), which is equally allocated to stock options and performance-based restricted stock units.
The chart below illustrates the increase in target total direct compensation for our CEO for 2017, as well as the total shareholder return for 2017 for the Company and our comparison group.
Target total direct compensation represents the sum of base salary, target annual incentive plan opportunity, and long-term incentive grant guideline, as summarized below:
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
31 |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Compensation Practices
Our compensation programs encourage executive decision-making that is aligned with the long-term interests of our stockholders. We tie a significant portion of pay to Company performance over a multi-year period. Our Compensation Committee has incorporated the following market-leading governance features into our executive compensation programs:
Compensation Philosophy |
We maintain a market median range compensation philosophy for all elements of total direct compensation, with Committee discretion to position our NEOs appropriately relative to that range based on factors such as tenure, past performance, and future potential |
Goal Setting Process |
We have in place a robust planning process to establish financial and business performance metrics for incentive plans |
Performance Measures |
We use different performance measures in our short-term and long-term incentive plans |
Stock Ownership |
We maintain stock ownership guidelines that encourage executives to retain a significant long-term position in our stock and thereby align their interests with the interests of our stockholders |
Change in Control |
We have implemented a balanced change-in-control severance policy that provides our officers severance at two times the sum of base salary plus annual incentive pay at target following a change in control and termination of employment (a so-called “double-trigger”), with no tax gross-ups |
Risk Mitigation |
We employ features to mitigate against our executives taking excessive risk in order to maximize pay-outs, including varied and balanced performance targets, discretionary authority of the Compensation Committee to reduce award pay-outs, bonus caps at 200% of target and a Policy on Reimbursement of Incentive Payments (or so-called “clawback” policy) |
Problematic Practices |
We do not provide or permit “single-trigger” vesting in event of change in control, hedging or pledging of our Company stock, or backdating or repricing of stock option awards |
Employment Agreements |
We do not maintain employment agreements with any of our NEOs |
The Compensation Committee oversees the design and administration of our executive compensation programs according to the processes and procedures discussed in the Corporate Governance section of this Proxy Statement. The Compensation Committee is advised by an independent compensation consultant, FW Cook.
Pay-Versus-Performance Alignment
We emphasize pay-for-performance and structure our programs to provide incentives for executives to drive business and financial results. We believe that the pay of our executives, particularly our CEO, correlates well with our total shareholder returns; and while our incentive programs help to drive results, they do so without encouraging excessive risk-taking that would threaten the long-term growth of our business.
The Compensation Committee annually evaluates how the amount of cash compensation paid aligns with the Company’s size and performance relative to the comparison companies. For purposes of this analysis, composite size and performance is calculated based on various measures of company size, profitability, growth, and total shareholder return. Cash compensation paid represents the sum of actual base salaries and annual bonuses paid for each fiscal year. The chart below illustrates how annual cash compensation paid for the NEOs has been conservative relative to the Company’s size and performance over the last four years for which such data was available for the comparison companies as of the date of this Proxy Statement.
32 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Shareholder Outreach and 2017 Say-on-Pay Results
During 2017, we engaged stockholders holding approximately 50% of our shares concerning a variety of topics, including our executive compensation program. The stockholders did not raise any significant issues with respect to our program. Additionally, at the 2017 Annual Meeting, our stockholders approved on an advisory basis the compensation of our NEOs disclosed in that year’s proxy statement, with more than 94% of the total votes cast by holders of shares represented at the meeting voting in favor of our executive compensation proposal. The Compensation Committee took this favorable stockholder support into account in deciding to retain the overall structure and philosophy of our compensation plans and programs in 2017.
The principal elements of our executive compensation programs for 2017 are illustrated below:
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
33 |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
To align pay levels for NEOs with the Company’s performance, our pay mix places the greatest emphasis on performance-based incentives. Approximately 91% of our CEO’s target total direct compensation (salary, target bonus and the grant date fair value of long-term incentive awards), and approximately 77% of the average target total direct compensation of our other NEOs is performance-based, as summarized below, with equity elements depicted in blue and cash elements depicted in gray:
CEO Pay Mix |
Average Other Named Executive Officer Pay Mix |
Our Analysis
Our analysis indicates that total direct compensation mix for our NEOs on average is generally consistent with the competitive market. The CEO receives a higher proportion of his total direct compensation allocated to performance-based components than non-performance-based components and more allocated to equity-based compensation than cash-based compensation compared to the other NEOs. The higher emphasis on performance-based compensation for the CEO is designed to reward him for driving company performance and creating long-term shareholder value that is a greater responsibility in his position than in the positions of the other NEOs, and is consistent with the competitive market for the CEO position. The level of compensation of our CEO reflects the many responsibilities of serving as CEO of a public company. Accordingly, our CEO’s median range competitive pay levels (including long-term equity awards) reflect his broader scope and greater responsibilities compared to our other NEOs.
Our executive compensation program is designed to meet the following objectives:
· |
Support our corporate vision and long-term financial objectives |
· |
Communicate the importance of our business results |
· |
Retain and motivate executives important to our success |
· |
Reward executives for contributions at a level reflecting our performance |
Our executive compensation program as a whole, as well as each element, is designed to be market-competitive in order to attract, motivate and retain our executives in a manner that is in the best interests of our stockholders. Our executive compensation program is further designed to reinforce and complement ethical and sustainable management practices, promote sound risk management and align management interests (such as sustainable long-term growth) with those of our stockholders. We believe that our long-term equity incentive program, which typically accounts for at least half of our NEOs’ total annual compensation, is an effective tool in aligning our executives’ interests with those of our stockholders and in incentivizing long-term value creation.
34 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Our philosophy is to position base salary, annual cash incentives, and long-term equity incentives in the median range of our competitive market, adjusted for the Company’s size. We define the median range as within 15% of the median for base salaries and within 20% of the median for annual cash incentive targets and long-term incentive targets. For annual cash incentives, our philosophy generally is to also position them at a level commensurate with the Company’s performance based on adjusted EPS compared to EPS growth in the Standard & Poor’s 500 (“S&P 500”). We position annual cash incentives and long-term incentives to provide lower than median compensation for lower than competitive market performance and higher than median compensation for higher than competitive market performance. This approach provides motivation to executives without incentivizing inappropriate risk-taking to achieve pay-outs, as we believe that the Company’s prospects for growth are generally at least as favorable as the average of the S&P 500.
Our Analysis
For 2017, total direct compensation opportunities for all our NEOs were positioned in the market median range. The Compensation Committee has determined to establish total direct compensation opportunities for our CEO toward the high end of the median range in recognition of his long tenure and sustained exceptional performance.
For our NEOs, the Compensation Committee reviewed and approved all elements of 2017 compensation, taking into consideration recommendations from our CEO (but not for his own compensation), as well as competitive market guidance and feedback provided by the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant and our human resources staff regarding individual performance, time in position and internal pay comparisons. The Compensation Committee reviewed and approved all elements of 2017 compensation for our CEO, taking into consideration the Board’s performance assessment of the CEO and recommendations, competitive market guidance and feedback from the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant and our human resources staff. Recommendations with respect to the compensation of our CEO are not shared with our CEO.
For benchmarking purposes, we define our competitive market for compensation data to be a simple average of median compensation from a 19-company comparison group and size-adjusted median general industry data from third-party surveys in which we participate.
The comparison group is selected by the independent compensation consultant based on input from the Company and the Compensation Committee, and is reviewed and approved annually by the Compensation Committee in the spring of each year. The independent consultant utilizes an objective selection process methodology that consists of the following steps:
· |
Focus on companies in the chemicals, oil & gas equipment & services, and industrial conglomerates industry groups |
· |
Screen for companies with annual revenues of one-fourth to four times the annual revenues of our Company |
· |
Further screen for companies within a reasonable size range in various other measures such as annual operating income, total assets, total equity, total employees and market capitalization |
· |
Identify companies that meet several other criteria, such as significant international operations, inclusion in the S&P 500, business-to-business focus, and not highly cyclical |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
35 |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The chart below summarizes our Company’s percentile ranking versus the 19 companies selected for the comparison group for 2017 based on the above selection criteria:
All financial and market data are taken from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ
The third‐party general industry surveys used during 2017 were from Aon Hewitt, Willis Towers Watson and FW Cook. For benchmarking 2017 base salary and annual cash incentive compensation, we used the average of size‐adjusted median compensation data from Aon Hewitt and Willis Towers Watson, as well as median compensation data from the comparison companies. The 2016 Willis Towers Watson CDB General Industry Executive Compensation Survey includes 484 organizations that range in revenue from approximately $1 billion to over $42 billion. We also used the 2016 Aon Hewitt TCM Executive Regression Analysis Survey, which includes over 400 organizations that range in revenue from approximately $120 million to $152 billion. For benchmarking long‐term incentives, we used the average of the median compensation data yielded by the comparison companies, the 2017 Willis Towers Watson CDB General Industry Executive Compensation Survey and the FW Cook 2017 Survey of Long‐Term Incentives. The 2017 Willis Towers Watson survey has 507 participants which range in revenue from approximately $1 billion to greater than $41 billion. The FW Cook survey has 56 participants which range in revenue from over $5 billion to over $190 billion.
The Compensation Committee reviews base salaries for our NEOs and other executives annually in February to be effective as of April 1 of the current fiscal year, and adjustments are based on changes in our competitive market, changes in scope of responsibility, individual performance and time in position. Our philosophy is to pay base salaries that are within the median range of our size-adjusted competitive market. When an executive officer is new to his or her position, his or her initial base salary will likely be at the low end of the median range but, if performance is acceptable, his or her base salary will be increased over several years to arrive at the median.
36 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Salary Increases
For 2016 and 2017, annualized base salary rates for our NEOs are summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
2016 |
|
2017 |
|
Increase |
Douglas M. Baker, Jr. |
|
1,200,000 |
|
1,250,000 |
|
4.2 % |
Daniel J. Schmechel |
|
600,000 |
|
625,000 |
|
4.2 % |
Thomas W. Handley |
|
675,000 |
|
700,000 |
|
3.7 % |
Christophe Beck |
|
552,500 |
|
570,000 |
|
3.2 % |
Michael A. Hickey |
|
552,500 |
|
570,000 |
|
3.2 % |
(1) |
All increases represent merit increases. |
Our Analysis
For 2017, base salaries accounted for approximately 9% of total compensation for the CEO and 23% on average for the four other NEOs. 2017 base salary rates were within the median range for all of our NEOs. In general, the 2017 merit salary increases for our NEOs were in line with the principles used to deliver the Company’s U.S. salary increases broadly.
Adjustments to Reported Financial Results
The Compensation Committee has authority to adjust the reported diluted EPS and ROIC on which incentive compensation payouts are determined in order to eliminate the distorting effect of unusual income or expense items that may occur during a given year and that impact year-over-year growth or return percentages.
For purposes of the adjusted EPS performance measure used in our annual cash incentive program, a reconciliation of 2017 diluted EPS as reported to 2017 adjusted diluted EPS is summarized below:
2017 reported diluted EPS |
$ 5.13
|
Adjustments: |
|
Special (gains) and charges |
$ 0.19
|
Discrete tax net expense (benefit) |
($0.63) |
Adjusted diluted EPS |
$ 4.69
|
Note: Per-share amounts do not necessarily sum due to rounding. Additional information regarding the composition of the adjustments identified in the table above is contained on pages 33-37 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.
Reported diluted earnings per share and adjusted EPS for the years 2013 through 2017 are provided in our 2017 Annual Report. We believe that in this context adjusted EPS is a more meaningful measure of the Company’s underlying business performance than reported diluted earnings per share because it provides greater transparency with respect to our results of operations and that it is more useful for period-to-period comparison of results. In addition, we use adjusted EPS internally to evaluate our performance and in making financial and operational decisions.
For purposes of the measurement of divisional and business unit performance goals and in the determination of payouts to executives under our annual cash incentive program, the revenue and operating income performance measures are recorded at fixed currency rates of foreign exchange and adjusted for special gains and charges, as well as certain other exceptional items, such as the results of certain businesses acquired during the year and certain strategic initiatives. We include within special gains and charges items that we believe can significantly affect the period-over-period assessment of operating results and not necessarily reflect costs and/or income associated with historical trends and future operating results, as more fully identified on pages 33-35 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. We use these measures internally to evaluate our performance and in making financial and operational decisions, including with respect to incentive compensation. We believe that our use of these measures provides greater transparency with respect to our results of operations and that these measures are useful for period-to-period comparison of results.
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
37 |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
For purposes of the adjusted ROIC performance measure used in our PBRSU program, we define ROIC as the quotient of after-tax operating income divided by the sum of short-term and long-term debt and shareholders’ equity, less cash and cash equivalents. The PBRSU awards provide for adjustment of the ROIC calculation in the event of a large acquisition (such as the Nalco and Champion transactions) or other significant transaction or event approved by the Board. Considering the significant impact of purchase accounting and special gains and charges related to the Nalco and Champion transactions on the ROIC calculation, for the 2018 to 2020 performance cycle, adjusted ROIC is measured excluding the purchase accounting impact and special gains and charges related to these transactions and is also adjusted for acquisitions, accounting or tax changes, gains or losses from discontinued operations, restructurings, and certain other unusual or infrequently occurring charges during the performance period.
This CD&A contains statements regarding incentive targets and goals. These targets and goals are disclosed in the limited context of the Company’s compensation programs and should not be understood to be statements of management’s expectations or estimates of results or other guidance.
The Company maintains annual cash incentive programs for executives referred to as the Management Incentive Plan, or MIP, and Management Performance Incentive Plan, or MPIP. In effect, the MPIP establishes the maximum bonus payouts for the NEOs, while the MIP criteria are used by the Compensation Committee to guide the exercise of its downward discretion in determining the actual pay-outs which have historically been (and were in 2017) well below the MPIP maximum permitted payouts. As further described under the “Regulatory Considerations” heading on page 44, the annual cash incentive programs have been historically designed and administered in this manner to preserve the federal income tax deductibility of the associated compensation expense by the Company. To determine the 2017 award payments (which were paid in March 2018), the Committee reviewed the performance of the NEOs and other executives at its February 2018 meeting prior to filing. With respect to the 2017 awards, the Committee established a performance goal under the MPIP to determine the maximum pay-out potential and then used the goals described below with respect to the MIP to determine whether and to what degree the actual payout amount for each NEO’s annual cash incentive award would be less than the maximum permitted amount.
Target Award Opportunities
Under the MIP, we establish annual target award opportunities expressed as a percentage of base salary paid during the year and various award payment limits expressed as a percentage of the target award. Our annual cash incentive targets are set within the median range relative to our competitive market for each position, and the annual cash incentive plan is structured so that lower performance results in below-market payouts and superior performance drives payouts above the median range. For 2017, target award opportunities were within the median range for all our NEOs and ranged from 75% to 150% of base salary. Minimum and maximum payout opportunities ranged from 40% to 200% of target award opportunity, respectively, with no payout for performance below the minimum level specified.
Performance Measures
Under the MIP, we use a mix of overall corporate, business unit and individual performance measures to foster cross-divisional cooperation and to assure that executives have a reasonable measure of control over the factors that affect their awards. This performance measure mix varies by executive position.
Performance Goals and Achievement - Corporate
Under the MIP, several performance goals are used, including goals measuring overall corporate performance as well as goals for specific business unit performance for those executives who are responsible for these business units. Overall corporate performance in 2017 was based on adjusted EPS goals. We believe that adjusted EPS is a better measure of the Company’s underlying business performance than reported diluted EPS because it provides greater transparency with respect to our results of operations, which is more useful for period-to-period comparison of results. In addition, a total company measure of performance such as adjusted EPS is used as one of the performance measures with respect to our NEOs who manage particular business units because it reinforces our Circle the Customer -- Circle the Globe strategy and fosters cross-divisional cooperation.
38 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In establishing these goals for 2017, we took into consideration our prior year results, overall economic and market trends, other large companies’ performance expectations and our anticipated business opportunities, investment requirements and the competitive situation. For 2017, the adjusted EPS goals were:
Payout at 40% of the target award opportunity (minimum level) at |
|
$4.43 |
Payout at 100% of the target award opportunity (target level) at |
|
$4.70 |
Payout at 140% percent of the target award opportunity (140% level) at |
|
$4.85 |
Payout at 200% of the target award opportunity (maximum level) at |
|
$4.95 or greater |
Payouts for results between performance levels are interpolated on a straight-line basis. Actual 2017 adjusted EPS was $4.69 resulting in the achievement of the adjusted EPS goal at 98% of target. However, Management recommended that the Compensation Committee exercise its discretion as provided under the MIP and adjust the Company's performance achievement with respect to adjusted EPS from the actual adjusted EPS achieved of $4.69 to $4.70. The Compensation Committee followed Management's recommendation, and as a result, the adjusted EPS pay-out was adjusted from 98% of target to 100% of target. Management recommended the $0.01 adjustment for all participants in the MIP to offset the impact of the sale of the Company’s Equipment Care business on November 1, 2017, as the target level was based upon including a full year’s worth of Equipment Care results.
Performance Goals and Achievement - Division
For Mr. Handley, who is our President and Chief Operating Officer, 30% of his annual cash incentive is based upon a 2017 total division operating income goal. For 2017, the total division operating income goals were:
2.3% growth over 2016 total division operating income for payout at 40% of the target award opportunity (minimum level) |
7.9% growth over 2016 total division operating income for payout at 100% of the target award opportunity (target level) |
10.7% growth over 2016 total division operating income for payout at 140% percent of the target award opportunity (140% level) |
20.3% growth over 2016 total division operating income for payout at 200% of the target award opportunity (maximum level) |
Payouts for results between performance levels are interpolated on a straight-line basis. Adjusted as noted above, 2017 total division operating income grew 5.3% over 2016 total division operating income resulting in the achievement of the total division operating income goal at 72% of target.
For two of our NEOs, namely Messrs. Beck and Hickey who manage particular business units for us, 70% of their annual cash incentive is based upon their respective 2017 business unit performance goals which are measured against the achievement of revenue and operating income goals. The revenue and operating income goals, which are weighted equally, are set forth below.
The 2017 revenue goal for Mr. Beck was:
1.6% growth over 2016 business unit revenue for payout at 40% of the target award opportunity (minimum level) |
|
3.6% growth over 2016 business unit revenue for payout at 100% of the target award opportunity (target level) |
|
4.0% growth over 2016 business unit revenue for payout at 140% percent of the target award opportunity (140% level) |
|
8.2% growth over 2016 business unit revenue for payout at 200% of the target award opportunity (maximum level) |
The 2017 revenue goal for Mr. Hickey was:
-0.7% growth over 2016 business unit revenue for payout at 40% of the target award opportunity (minimum level) |
2.5% growth over 2016 business unit revenue for payout at 100% of the target award opportunity (target level) |
4.0% growth over 2016 business unit revenue for payout at 140% percent of the target award opportunity (140% level) |
7.0% growth over 2016 business unit revenue for payout at 200% of the target award opportunity (maximum level) |
The 2017 operating income goal for Mr. Beck was:
2.4% growth over 2016 business unit operating income for payout at 40% of the target award opportunity (minimum level) |
|
9.1% growth over 2016 business unit operating income for payout at 100% of the target award opportunity (target level) |
|
11.1% growth over 2016 business unit operating income for payout at 140% percent of the target award opportunity (140% level) |
|
24.1% growth over 2016 business unit operating income for payout at 200% of the target award opportunity (maximum level) |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
39 |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The 2017 operating income goal for Mr. Hickey was:
1.4% growth over 2016 business unit operating income for payout at 40% of the target award opportunity (minimum level) |
6.1% growth over 2016 business unit operating income for payout at 100% of the target award opportunity (target level) |
11.3% growth over 2016 business unit operating income for payout at 140% percent of the target award opportunity (140% level) |
15.5% growth over 2016 business unit operating income for payout at 200% of the target award opportunity (maximum level) |
No pay‐out is made with respect to the business unit revenue goal unless the business unit achieves at least the minimum level on its operating income goal. Pay‐outs for results between these two performance levels are interpolated on a straight‐line basis. Adjusted as noted above, revenue growth and operating income growth for the business units managed by Mr. Beck were 4.1% and 3.6%, respectively, resulting in achievement by Mr. Beck of his business unit goal at 96% of target. Revenue growth and operating income growth for the business units managed by Mr. Hickey were 0.9% and 2.3%, respectively, resulting in achievement by Mr. Hickey of his business unit goal at 61% of target.
Performance Goals and Achievement - Individual
For Mr. Schmechel, who holds a staff position as our Chief Financial Officer, 30% of his annual cash incentive is based upon attainment of individual performance goals. This component of his staff position award under the MIP is set at 30% of the performance measure mix for annual cash incentives so that achievement of these goals is a component of the award but remains balanced against achievement of corporate performance goals. The 2017 individual performance objectives for our Chief Financial Officer are specific, qualitative, and achievable with significant effort and, if achieved, provide benefit to the Company. Mr. Schmechel’s individual performance goals covered financial, organizational and strategic initiatives, including delivering on financial objectives, developing talent and projects to increase efficient service delivery. Mr. Schmechel achieved 72% of his individual target performance goals. The Compensation Committee, with input from the CEO, approved an annual cash incentive of $453,400, including the component based on the Chief Financial Officer’s achievement of his 2017 individual performance goals.
2017 Annual Incentive Compensation Pay-Out Summary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Performance Measure Mix |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2017 |
|
MIP Target Award Opportunity (% of Base Salary) (%) |
|
EPS (%) |
|
Business Unit (%) |
|
Individual (%) |
|
MIP
Target ($) |
|
MIP (%) |
|
Pay-Out Based on
MIP |
|
Compensation ($) |
|
Actual |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas M. |
1,237,500 |
150 | 100 | 1,856,250 | 98 | 1,819,200 | 37,100 | 1,856,300 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Baker, Jr. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel J. |
618,750 |
80 | 70 | 346,500 | 98 | 339,600 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Schmechel |
30 | 148,500 | 72 | 106,800 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
446,400 | 7,000 | 453,400 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thomas W. |
693,750 |
90 | 70 | 437,063 | 98 | 428,300 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Handley |
30 | 187,313 | 72 | 134,800 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
563,100 | 8,800 | 571,900 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christophe |
565,625 |
75 | 30 | 127,266 | 98 | 124,700 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beck |
70 | 296,953 | 96 | 285,600 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
410,300 | 2,600 | 412,900 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael A. |
565,625 |
75 | 30 | 127,266 | 98 | 124,700 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hickey |
70 | 296,953 | 61 | 182,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
306,700 | 2,600 | 309,300 |
(1)Management recommended that the Compensation Committee exercise its discretion as provided under the MIP and adjust the Company's performance achievement with respect to adjusted earnings per share from the actual adjusted earnings per share achieved of $4.69 to $4.70. The Compensation Committee followed Management's recommendation, and, as a result, the adjusted earnings per share pay-out was adjusted from 98% of target to 100% of target. See “Annual Cash Incentives — Performance Goals and Achievement - Corporate”, beginning at page 38 for a discussion of the reasons for the adjustment.
40 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Discretionary Adjustments
To recognize individual performance, the Compensation Committee also may increase or decrease an NEO’s payout from the level recommended by applying the MIP performance metrics (but always subject to the maximum permitted MPIP payout), with input from the CEO (other than as to his own award), based on the individual performance of the NEO. This is done to recognize either inferior or superior individual performance in cases where this performance is not fully represented by the performance measures. No such discretionary adjustments were made to the 2017 annual cash incentive payouts.
The Compensation Committee reviews and approves all adjustments to our overall corporate results and significant adjustments to our business unit performance results. Other than described above, the 2017 annual cash incentive payouts were made in accordance with the overall corporate results and business unit performance results established for the NEOs without adjustment.
Our Analysis
In 2017 the Compensation Committee set the minimum, target and maximum levels of the adjusted EPS component of the annual incentive so that the intended relative difficulty of achieving the various levels is consistent with the past several years, taking into account current prospects and market considerations. Target award opportunities in 2017 accounted for approximately 17% of total compensation on average for the NEOs receiving all elements of our compensation program and were within the median range of our competitive market for each position. Actual award payments for the NEOs averaged 91% of target award opportunities. The 2017 award payouts are indicative of solid fixed currency organic sales and earnings growth for the Company and differing levels of sales and earnings growth for the business segments during the year.
The Compensation Committee granted long-term equity incentives to our NEOs and other executives in December 2017, consistent with its core agenda and past practice of granting these incentives at its regularly scheduled December meeting. For 2017, our long-term equity incentive program consisted of an annual grant of stock options and PBRSUs, weighted approximately equally in terms of grant value.
Our program continues to be based on pre-established grant guidelines that are calibrated annually to our competitive market on a position-by-position basis for the NEOs. Actual grants may be above or below our guidelines based on our assessment of individual performance and future potential. Generally, long-term equity incentives are granted on the same date as our Compensation Committee approval date and in no event is the grant date prior to the approval date.
Our stock options have a 10-year contractual exercise term from the date of grant and vest ratably over three years. Our stock options have an exercise price which is the average of the high and low market price on the date of grant. We believe that the use of the average of the high and low market price on the date of the grant removes potential same-day stock volatility. We do not have a program, plan or practice to time stock option grants to executives in coordination with the release of material non-public information. From time to time, in addition to our annual grants, we may make special grants of stock options to our NEOs and other executives in connection with promotions and recruitment, and for general retention purposes. During 2017, we did not make any such special grants of stock options to our NEOs.
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
41 |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units
Our PBRSUs cliff-vest after three years, subject to attainment of three-year average annual adjusted ROIC goals over the performance period. We selected ROIC as the performance measure because it reinforces focus on capital efficiency throughout the organization, is highly correlated with shareholder returns, matches well with our long-standing corporate goal of achieving consistent return on beginning equity and is understood by our external market. As further described under the “Regulatory Considerations” heading on page 44, our PBRSUs have been historically designed and administered in a manner to preserve the federal income tax deductibility of the associated compensation expense by the Company. In this connection, the Compensation Committee annually establishes an adjusted ROIC goal for the executive officers to determine maximum payout potential, with the ability to exercise downward discretion to reduce the actual payout in accordance with the adjusted ROIC goals described below to be applied to a broader group of PBRSU award recipients.
For the 2018 to 2020 performance cycle, 40% of the PBRSUs granted may be earned subject to attainment of a threshold goal of 10% average annual ROIC over the cycle, and 100% of the PBRSUs may be earned subject to attainment of a target goal of 15% average annual ROIC over the cycle, in each case adjusted as described above under the heading “Adjustments to Reported Financial Results” beginning at page 37, with straight-line interpolation for performance results between threshold and target goals. No PBRSUs may be earned if adjusted ROIC is below the threshold goal, and no more than 100% of the PBRSUs may be earned if adjusted ROIC is above the target goal; accordingly, target and maximum are equal. Importantly, the threshold goal exceeds our cost of capital, thereby ensuring that value is created before awards are earned. Excluding the impact of purchase accounting and special gains and charges related to the Nalco and Champion transactions, the Company’s annual adjusted ROIC for 2017 was 22.6%. Dividend equivalents are not paid or accrued on the PBRSUs during the performance period.
Pay-out of Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units Vesting in 2017
The PBRSUs granted by the Committee in December 2014 for the 2015 to 2017 performance cycle vested on December 31, 2017 and the Committee has determined the pay‐out for such PBRSUs, including with respect to Messrs. Baker, Schmechel, Handley, Beck and Hickey, to be 100% of the target opportunity. For the PBRSUs granted in December 2014, the target payout would be earned upon attainment of an average annual ROIC, adjusted as previously described, of 15% over the 2015 through 2017 performance cycle. Consistent with the established formula and definition of adjusted ROIC, the Company’s average annual ROIC over the cycle, excluding the impact of purchase accounting and special gains and charges relating to the Nalco and Champion transactions, was 21.6%. Based upon this performance, the Committee approved pay‐out of 100% of the PBRSUs.
From time to time, we may make special grants of restricted stock or restricted stock units subject only to service-based vesting to our NEOs and other executives in connection with promotions and recruitment, and for general retention purposes. During 2017, we did not make any special grants of restricted stock units to our NEOs.
Our Analysis
For the last completed fiscal year, long-term equity incentives accounted for approximately 77% of total target compensation for the CEO and 59% on average for the other NEOs, which is consistent with our competitive market. Actual grants to the NEOs were within the median range for all of our NEOs. Our annual practice of granting equity incentives in the form of stock options and PBRSUs is similar to our competitive market, where other forms of long-term equity and cash compensation are typically awarded in addition to, or in lieu of, stock options. Our selective use of restricted stock or restricted stock units as a retention or recruitment incentive is consistent with our competitive market. We believe that our overall long-term equity compensation cost is within a reasonable range of our competitive market as to our NEOs and also our other employees.
42 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Executive Benefits and Perquisites
Our NEOs participate in all of the same health care, disability, life insurance, pension, and 401(k) benefit plans made available generally to the Company’s U.S. employees. In addition, our NEOs are eligible to participate in a deferred compensation program, restoration plans for the qualified 401(k) and pension plans, and, with respect to certain of our NEOs, an executive disability and life benefit and a supplemental retirement benefit. The non-qualified retirement plans supplement the benefits provided under our tax-qualified plans, taking into account compensation and benefits above the IRS limits for qualified plans. The NEOs also receive limited perquisites that are described in more detail in the footnotes to the Summary Compensation Table, including certain allowances and limited perquisites received by Mr. Beck related to his relocation.
The Company has maintained a private aircraft use policy for several years authorizing the use of private aircraft for business and personal use by the Company’s Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and, under certain circumstances, business use by its directors and certain other executives. Under the policy, personal use of private aircraft by the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer is limited to $100,000 of unreimbursed usage per year. Additional information with respect to this perquisite is provided in more detail in the footnotes to the Summary Compensation Table.
Our Analysis
We review our executive benefits and perquisites program periodically to ensure it remains market-competitive for our executives and supportable to our stockholders. Excluding allowances and perquisites provided to Mr. Beck to support his relocation, our perquisites account for 1.5% of total compensation for the CEO and the other NEOs receiving all elements of our compensation program in 2017. Executive benefits and perquisites are consistent with our competitive market.
Executive Change-In-Control Policy
The terms of our Change-In-Control Severance Compensation Policy, including the events constituting a change in control under our policy, are described in Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control section of this Proxy Statement. Our policy applies to all elected officers, including the NEOs, except those who are covered by separate change-in-control or similar agreements with the Company or a subsidiary, a circumstance which arises only in the case of an executive having such an agreement with a company we acquire. Such an executive will become covered automatically under the Company’s Change-In-Control Severance Compensation Policy when the existing agreements terminate or expire.
Our Analysis
We review our change-in-control protection periodically to ensure it continues to address the best interests of our stockholders. Our analysis indicates that our change-in-control policy, which is structured as a so-called “double-trigger” policy, promotes the interests of stockholders by mitigating executives’ concerns about the impact a change in control may have on them, thereby allowing the executives to focus on the best interests of stockholders under such circumstances.
Stock Retention and Ownership Guidelines
We have in place stock retention and ownership guidelines to encourage our NEOs and other executives to accumulate a significant ownership stake so they are vested in maximizing long-term stockholder returns. Our guidelines provide that the CEO own Company stock with a market value of at least six times current base salary. The Company also requires other corporate officers to own Company stock with a market value of at least three times current base salary. Until the stock ownership guideline is met, our CEO, CFO and President are expected to retain 100% of all after-tax profit shares from exercise, vesting or payout of equity awards. Our other officers are expected to retain 50% of all after-tax profit shares from exercise, vesting or payout of equity awards until their stock ownership guidelines are met. For purposes of complying with our guidelines, stock is not considered owned if subject to an unexercised stock option or unvested PBRSU. Shares owned outright, legally or beneficially, by an officer or his or her immediate family members residing in the same household and shares held in the 401(k) plan count towards meeting the guideline. Our NEOs and other officers may not pledge shares or enter into any risk hedging arrangements with respect to Company stock.
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
43 |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
NEO Stock Ownership Relative to Guidelines
The table below illustrates the standing of each of our NEOs in relation to their respective stock ownership guidelines as of December 29, 2017, based on the closing market price of our Common Stock on such date of $134.18 per share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017 |
|
Stock |
|
Stock |
|
Multiple of |
Douglas M. Baker, Jr. |
|
1,250,000 |
|
6 X salary |
|
617,086 |
|
66.2 X salary |
Daniel J. Schmechel |
|
625,000 |
|
3 X salary |
|
143,593 |
|
30.8 X salary |
Thomas W. Handley |
|
700,000 |
|
3 X salary |
|
115,970 |
|
22.2 X salary |
Christophe Beck |
|
570,000 |
|
3 X salary |
|
23,462 |
|
5.5 X salary |
Michael A. Hickey |
|
570,000 |
|
3 X salary |
|
50,801 |
|
12.0 X salary |
(1) |
Excludes shares underlying unexercised or unvested long-term incentive awards. |
Our Analysis
Our analysis indicates that our stock retention and ownership guidelines are consistent with the design provisions of other companies disclosing such guidelines, as reported in public SEC filings and as periodically published in various surveys and research reports. Our analysis further indicates that our NEOs are in compliance with our guidelines either by having achieved the ownership guideline or, if the guideline is not yet achieved, by retaining 100% or 50%, as applicable, of all after-tax profit shares from any stock option exercises or restricted stock unit vesting.
The Company’s Board of Directors has adopted a policy requiring the reimbursement of annual cash incentive and long-term equity incentive payments made to an executive officer due to the executive officer’s misconduct, as determined by the Board based on the recommendation of the Compensation Committee. Each of our executive officers has agreed in writing to this policy. This policy was filed with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as Exhibit (10)W and is available along with our other SEC filings at our website at www.investor.ecolab.com/earnings-center/sec-filings.
We monitor changes in the tax and accounting regulatory environment when assessing the financial efficiency of the various elements of our executive compensation program. We have designed and administered our annual cash incentives, particularly our stockholder-approved MPIP, and long-term equity incentive plans in a manner that is intended to preserve the federal income tax deductibility of the associated compensation expense.
As part of the recent tax law changes, the exemption from Section 162(m)’s deduction limit for performance-based compensation has been repealed, effective for our 2018 year, such that compensation paid to the NEOs in excess of $1 million will not be deductible unless it qualifies for transition relief applicable to certain arrangements in place as of November 2, 2017.
Despite the Compensation Committee’s efforts to structure the MPIP and PBRSUs in a manner intended to be exempt from Section 162(m) and therefore not subject to its deduction limits, because of ambiguities and uncertainties as to the application and interpretation of Section 162(m), including the uncertain scope of the transition relief under the legislation repealing Section 162(m)’s exemption from the deduction limit, no assurance can be given that compensation intended to satisfy the requirements for exemption from Section 162(m) in fact will. Further, the Compensation Committee reserves the right to modify compensation that was initially intended to be exempt from Section 162(m) if it determines that such modifications are consistent with our business needs.
The MPIP was designed to meet the prior requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) regarding performance-based compensation and is administered by the Compensation Committee, which selects the participants each year and establishes the annual performance goal based upon performance criteria that it selects, the performance target and a maximum annual cash award dependent on achievement of the performance goal. For 2017, the Compensation Committee selected reported diluted earnings per share as the performance measure under the MPIP. The Compensation Committee
44 |
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
certifies the extent to which the performance goal has been met and the corresponding amount of the award earned by the participants, with the ability to exercise downward discretion to lower, but not raise, the award to an amount based upon the metrics used for our broader-based MIP cash incentive and to recognize individual performance.
The Compensation Committee has similarly positioned the PBRSUs to meet the prior requirements of Section 162(m). The Compensation Committee annually establishes an adjusted ROIC goal for the executive officers to determine maximum payout potential for Code Section 162(m) purposes, with the ability to exercise downward discretion to reduce the actual payout in accordance with the adjusted ROIC goals to be applied to a broader group of PBRSU award recipients as described above under “Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units.”
We have designed and administered our deferred compensation, equity compensation and change-in-control severance plans to be in compliance with federal tax rules affecting non-qualified deferred compensation. In accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification 718, Compensation - Stock Compensation, for financial statement purposes, we expense all equity-based awards over the service period for awards expected to vest, based upon their estimated fair value at grant date. Accounting treatment has not resulted in changes in our equity compensation program design for our NEOs.
ECOLAB - 2018 Proxy Statement |
45 |
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE FOR 2017
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE FOR 2017
The following table shows cash and non-cash compensation for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 for the persons serving as the Company’s “Principal Executive Officer” and “Principal Financial Officer” during the year ended December 31, 2017 and for the next three most highly-compensated executive officers who were serving in those capacities at December 31, 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name & Principal Position |
|
Year |
|
Salary(1) |
|
Bonus |
|
Stock |
|
Option |
|
Non-Equity |
|
Change in |
|
All Other |
|
Total ($) |
Douglas M. Baker, Jr. |
|
2017 |
|
1,237,500 |
|
- |
|
5,006,515 |
|
5,247,902 |
|
1,856,300 |
|
791,404 |
|
243,608 |
|
14,383,229 |
Chairman of the Board and |
|
2016 |
|
1,187,500 |
|
- |
|
4,680,970 |
|
4,839,616 |
|
1,699,100 |
|
1,749,879 |
|
193,386 |
|
14,350,452 |
Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) |
|
2015 |
|
1,140,343 |
|
- |
|
4,355,360 |
|
4,453,947 |
|
0 |
|
3,513,831 |
|
139,888 |
|
13,603,369 |
Daniel J. Schmechel |
|
2017 |
|
618,750 |
|
- |
|
901,233 |
|
944,605 |
|
453,400 |
|
896,678 |
|
469,764 |
|
4,284,430 |
Chief Financial Officer |
|
2016 |
|
581,250 |
|
- |
|
886,936 |
|
916,988 |
|
443,100 |
|
444,275 |
|
(307,949) |
|
2,964,599 |
and Treasurer |
|
2015 |
|
518,750 |
|
- |
|
822,722 |
|
841,312 |
|
124,500 |
|
1,000,637 |
|
278,152 |
|
3,586,073 |
Thomas W. Handley |
|
2017 |
|
693,750 |
|
- |
|
1,001,356 |
|
1,049,568 |
|
571,900 |
|
375,567 |
|
111,652 |
|
3,803,793 |
President and |
2016 | 661,250 |