Annual Reports

 
Quarterly Reports

 
8-K

 
Other

  • Form 4 (Mar 6, 2018)
  • 144 (Mar 2, 2018)
  • 144 (Feb 21, 2018)
  • 424B5 (Feb 15, 2018)
  • SC 13G (Feb 13, 2018)
  • Form 4 (Feb 9, 2018)
INGERSOLL RAND CO LTD DEF 14A 2014
2014DefinitveProxy
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
(Rule 14a-101)
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No.     )
Filed by the Registrant  x    
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ¨
Check the appropriate box:
¨
Preliminary Proxy Statement
¨ 
Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
x  
Definitive Proxy Statement
¨ 
Definitive Additional Materials
¨ 
Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company
(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):
x 
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:
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 









Ingersoll-Rand plc
Registered in Ireland No. 469272
U.S. Mailing Address:
800-E Beaty Street
Davidson, NC 28036
(704) 655-4000

NOTICE OF 2014 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS
The Annual General Meeting of Shareholders of Ingersoll-Rand plc (the “Company”) will be held on Thursday, June 5, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., local time, at Adare Manor Hotel, Adare, County Limerick, Ireland, to consider and vote upon the following proposals:
1.
By separate resolutions, to re-elect as directors for a period of 1 year expiring at the end of the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders of Ingersoll-Rand plc in 2015, the following 11 individuals:
 
(a)
Ann C. Berzin
(g)
Michael W. Lamach
 
(b)
John Bruton
(h)
Theodore E. Martin
 
(c)
Jared L. Cohon
(i)
John P. Surma
 
(d)
Gary D. Forsee
(j)
Richard J. Swift
 
(e)
Edward E. Hagenlocker
(k)
Tony L. White
 
(f)
Constance J. Horner
 
 
2.
To give advisory approval of the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers.
3.
To approve the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent auditors of the Company and authorize the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors to set the auditors’ remuneration.
4.
To renew the Directors’ existing authority to issue shares.
5.
To renew the Directors’ existing authority to issue shares for cash without first offering shares to existing shareholders. (Special Resolution)
6.
To determine the price range at which the Company can reissue shares that it holds as treasury shares. (Special Resolution)
7.
To conduct such other business properly brought before the meeting.
Only shareholders of record as of the close of business on April 8, 2014, are entitled to receive notice of and to vote at the Annual General Meeting. Whether or not you plan to attend the meeting, please provide your proxy by either using the Internet or telephone as further explained in the accompanying proxy statement or filling in, signing, dating, and promptly mailing a proxy card.
Directions to the meeting can be found in Appendix A of the attached Proxy Statement.
Registered Office:
By Order of the Board of Directors,
170/175 Lakeview Dr.
Airside Business Park
Swords, Co. Dublin
Ireland
EVAN M. TURTZ
Secretary
IF YOU ARE A SHAREHOLDER WHO IS ENTITLED TO ATTEND AND VOTE, THEN YOU ARE ENTITLED TO APPOINT A PROXY OR PROXIES TO ATTEND AND VOTE ON YOUR BEHALF. A PROXY IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE A SHAREHOLDER IN THE COMPANY. IF YOU WISH TO APPOINT AS PROXY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE INDIVIDUALS SPECIFIED ON THE PROXY CARD, PLEASE CONTACT THE COMPANY SECRETARY AT OUR REGISTERED OFFICE.
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS
FOR THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON JUNE 5, 2014
The Annual Report and Proxy Statement are available at www.proxyvote.com.
The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, or this Notice of 2014 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders, the Proxy Statement and the Annual Report are first being mailed to shareholders on or about April 24, 2014.  





TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Page
 
                 Audit Committee Report
                 Fees of the Independent Auditors
     Code of Conduct
     Who May Vote?
     How Do I Vote?







SUMMARY INFORMATION
This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this Proxy Statement. For more complete information about these topics, please review Ingersoll-Rand plc’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and the entire Proxy Statement.
Annual General Meeting of Shareholders
   Date and Time:        
 
June 5, 2014 at 2:30 p.m., local time
 
 
 
   Place:
 
Adare Manor Hotel
 
 
Adare, County Limerick
 
 
Ireland
 
 
 
   Record Date:        
 
April 8, 2014
 
 
 
   Voting:
 
Shareholders as of the record date are entitled to vote. Each ordinary share is entitled to one vote for each director nominee and each of the other proposals.
 
 
 
   Attendance:
 
All shareholders may attend the meeting.
Meeting Agenda and Voting Recommendations
The Board of Directors recommends that you vote “For” each of the following items that will be submitted for shareholder approval at the Annual General Meeting.
Agenda Item
 
Vote Required
 
Page
Election of 11 directors named in the proxy statement.
 
Majority of votes cast
 
Advisory approval of the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers.
 
Majority of votes cast
 
Approval of appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent auditors and authorize the Audit Committee to set the auditors’ remuneration.
 
Majority of votes cast
 
Renew the Directors’ authority to issues shares.
 
Majority of votes cast
 
Renew the Directors’ authority to issue shares for cash without first offering shares to existing shareholders (Special Resolution)
 
75% of votes cast
 
Determine the price at which the Company can reissue shares held as treasury shares (Special Resolution)
 
75% of votes cast
 
Corporate Governance Highlights    
 
Ÿ Substantial majority of independent directors (11 of 12)
Ÿ Annual election of directors
Ÿ Majority vote for directors
Ÿ Independent Lead Director
Ÿ Board oversight of risk management
Ÿ Succession planning at all levels, including for Board and CEO
Ÿ Annual Board and committee self-assessments
Ÿ Executive sessions of non-management directors
Ÿ Continuing director education
Ÿ Executive and director stock ownership guidelines
Ÿ Board oversight of sustainability program


1



Director Nominees
Set forth below is summary information about each director nominee.
Nominee
 
Age
 
Director Since
 
Principal Occupation
 
Independent
 
Committee Memberships
Ann C. Berzin
 
62
 
2001
 
Former Chairman and CEO of Financial Guaranty Insurance Company
 
ü
 
Ÿ Audit
Ÿ Finance (Chair)
John Bruton
 
66
 
2010
 
Former Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland and Former European Union Commission Head of Delegation to the United States
 
ü
 
Ÿ Compensation
Ÿ Corporate Governance and Nominating

Jared L. Cohon
 
66
 
2008
 
President Emeritus of Carnegie Mellon University
 
ü
 
Ÿ Compensation
Ÿ Corporate Governance and Nominating

Gary D. Forsee
 
64
 
2007
 
Former President of University of Missouri System and Former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Sprint Nextel Corporation

 
ü
 
Ÿ Compensation
Ÿ Corporate Governance and Nominating (Chair)
Edward E. Hagenlocker
 
74
 
2008
 
Former Vice Chairman of Ford Motor Company

 
ü
 
Ÿ Audit
Ÿ Finance
Constance J. Horner
 
72
 
1994
 
Former Commissioner of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
 
ü
 
Ÿ Compensation
Ÿ Corporate Governance and Nominating
Michael W. Lamach
 
50
 
2010
 
Chairman, President and CEO of Ingersoll-Rand plc

 
 
 
Ÿ None
Theodore E. Martin
 
74
 
1996
 
Former President and CEO of Barnes Group Inc.

 
ü
 
Ÿ Audit
Ÿ Finance
John P. Surma
 
59
 
2013
 
Former Chairman and CEO of United States Steel Corporation
 
ü
 
Ÿ Audit
Ÿ Finance
Richard J. Swift
 
69
 
1995
 
Former Chairman of Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council and Former Chairman, President and CEO of Foster Wheeler Ltd.

 
ü
 
Ÿ Lead Independent Director
Ÿ Audit (Chair)
Ÿ Finance
Tony L. White
 
67
 
1997
 
Former Chairman and CEO of Applied Biosystems Inc.
 
ü
 
Ÿ Compensation (Chair)
Ÿ Corporate Governance and Nominating


2



Advisory Approval of Our Executive Compensation
We are asking for your advisory approval of the compensation of our named executive officers. While our Board of Directors intends to carefully consider the shareholder vote resulting from the proposal, the final vote will not be binding on us and is advisory in nature. Before considering this proposal, please read our Compensation Discussion and Analysis, which explains our executive compensation programs and the Compensation Committee’s compensation decisions.
Executive Compensation
Pay for Performance
Our executive compensation programs are based on the principles of (i) program competitiveness, (ii) pay for performance, (iii) mix of short and long-term incentives, (iv) internal parity, (v) shareholder alignment and (vi) business strategy alignment. Consistent with these principles, the Compensation Committee has adopted executive compensation programs with a strong link between pay and achievement of short and long-term Company goals.
2013 Results
In a year where we successfully implemented extensive organizational change with the successful spin-off of our commercial and residential security businesses (the “Spin-off”) into an independent, publicly traded company, Allegion plc (“Allegion”) and the reorganization of our Company, we also achieved strong financial performance. Specifically, the following results, (inclusive of the Allegion business for the full year), were realized in 2013:
Adjusted annual Revenue of $14.509 billion, an increase of 3% over 2012;
Adjusted OI of $1.639 billion, an increase of 8% over 2012;
Adjusted OI margin of 11.3 %, an increase of 0.5 percentage points from 10.8% in 2012;
Adjusted Cash Flow of $1.153 billion an increase of 14% over 2012;
Adjusted EPS of $3.63 excluding one-time spin related expense, an increase of 10% over 2012; and
3-year EPS growth (2011 - 2013) of 68.1%, which ranks at approximately the 75th percentile of the companies in the S&P 500 Industrials Index.
Please see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” for additional information and definitions of financial metrics.
Approval of Appointment of Independent Auditors
We are asking you to approve the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) as our independent auditors for 2014 and to authorize the Audit Committee to set PwC’s remuneration.
Renew the Directors’ authority to issues shares.
We are asking you to renew our Directors’ authority to issue shares under Irish law. This authority is fundamental to our business and granting the Board this authority is a routine matter for public companies incorporated in Ireland.
Renew the Directors’ authority to issue shares for cash without first offering shares to existing shareholders.
We are asking you to renew the Directors’ authority to issue shares for cash without first offering shares to existing shareholders. This authority is fundamental to our business and granting the Board this authority is a routine matter for public companies incorporated in Ireland. As required under Irish law, this proposal requires the affirmative vote of at least 75% of the votes cast.
Determine the price at which the Company can reissue shares held as treasury shares.
We are asking you to determine the price at which the Company can reissue shares held as treasury shares. From time to time the Company may acquire ordinary shares and hold them as treasury shares. The Company may reissue such treasury shares, and under Irish law, our shareholders must authorize the price range at which we may reissue any shares held in treasury.
2015 Annual Meeting
Deadline for shareholder proposals for inclusion in the proxy statement:
  
December 26, 2014
Deadline for business proposals and nominations for director:
  
March 6, 2015



3



Ingersoll-Rand plc

U.S. Mailing Address:
800-E Beaty Street
Davidson, NC 28036
(704) 655-4000
 
 
 
 
PROXY STATEMENT
 
 
 
 

In this Proxy Statement, “Ingersoll Rand,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Ingersoll-Rand plc, an Irish public limited company. This Proxy Statement and the enclosed proxy card, or the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, are first being mailed to shareholders of record on April 8, 2014 (the “Record Date”) on or about April 24, 2014.
PROPOSALS REQUIRING YOUR VOTE
Item 1. Election of Directors
The Company uses a majority of votes cast standard for the election of directors. A majority of the votes cast means that the number of votes cast “for” a director nominee must exceed the number of votes cast “against” that director nominee. Each director of the Company is being nominated for election for a one-year term beginning at the end of the 2014 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders to be held on June 5, 2014 (the “Annual General Meeting”) and expiring at the end of the 2015 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders. Mr. Nelson Peltz has determined not to stand for re-election due to other board commitments.
Under our articles of association, if a director is not re-elected in a director election, the director shall retire at the close or adjournment of the Annual General Meeting. Each director standing for election was elected as a director at our 2013 Annual General Meeting.
The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR the directors nominated for election listed under proposals 1(a) through (k) below.
(a)    Ann C. Berzin – age 62, director since 2001
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (insurer of municipal bonds and structured finance obligations), a subsidiary of General Electric Capital Corporation, from 1992 to 2001.
Current Directorships:
Exelon Corporation
Baltimore Gas & Electric Company
Other Directorships Held in the Past Five Years:
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Kindred Healthcare, Inc.
Ms. Berzin’s extensive experience in finance at a global diversified industrial firm and her expertise in complex investment and financial products and services bring critical insight to the Company’s financial affairs, including its borrowings, capitalization, and liquidity. In addition, Ms. Berzin’s relationships across the global financial community strengthen Ingersoll Rand’s access to capital markets. Her board memberships provide deep understanding of trends in the energy and healthcare sectors, both of which present ongoing challenges and opportunities for Ingersoll Rand.
(b)    John Bruton – age 66, director since 2010
European Union Commission Head of Delegation to the United States from 2004 to 2009.
Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland from 1994 to 1997.
Current Directorships:
Montpelier Re Holding Ltd.
Other Directorships Held in the Past Five Years: None
Mr. Bruton’s long and successful career of public service on behalf of Ireland and Europe provides extraordinary insight into critical regional and global economic, social and political issues, all of which directly influence the successful execution of the Company’s strategic plan. In particular, Mr. Bruton’s leadership role in transforming Ireland into one of the world’s leading economies during his tenure, as well as in preparing the governing document for managing the Euro, lend substantial authority to Ingersoll Rand’s economic and financial oversight.

    

4



(c)    Jared L. Cohon – age 66, director since 2008
President Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, President of Carnegie Mellon University from 1997-2013 and also appointed Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Professor of Engineering and Public Policy.
Current Directorships:
Lexmark, Inc.
Unisys
Other Directorships Held in the Past Five Years: None
Other Activities:
Carnegie Corporation, Trustee
Heinz Endowments, Trustee
Center for Sustainable Shale Gas Development, Director and Chair
Dr. Cohon’s extensive career in academics, including 16 years as president of an institution known throughout the world for its leadership in the fields of computer science and engineering offers the Company tremendous insight into the latest developments in areas critical to commercial innovation and manufacturing process improvement. A member of the National Academy of Engineering, Dr. Cohon is a recognized authority on environmental and water resources systems analysis and management. As such, Dr. Cohon also brings unique perspectives on sustainable business practices, both within our own operations and on behalf of our customers and communities. In 2008 and 2009, at the request of Congress, Dr. Cohon chaired the National Research Council Committee that produced the report, “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use.” Finally, Dr. Cohon’s more than nine years of service as a member of Trane Inc.’s (formerly American Standard) board of directors provides critical insight into that part of the Company’s business.
(d)    Gary D. Forsee age 64, director since 2007
President, University of Missouri System from 2008 to 2011.
Chairman of the Board (from 2006 to 2007) and Chief Executive Officer (from 2005 to 2007) of Sprint Nextel Corporation (a telecommunications company).
Current Directorships:
Great Plains Energy Inc.
Other Directorships Held in the Past Five Years: None
Other Activities:
Trustee, Midwest Research Institute
Trustee, University of Missouri - Kansas City Foundation
Trustee, University of Missouri – Kansas City Bloch Business School Foundation
In addition to his broad operational and financial expertise, Mr. Forsee’s experience as chairman and chief executive officer with the third largest U.S. firm in the global telecommunications industry offers a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities within markets experiencing significant technology-driven change. His recent role as president of a major university system provides insight into the Company’s talent development initiatives, which remain a critical enabler of Ingersoll Rand’s long-term success. Mr. Forsee’s membership on the board of an energy services utility also benefits the Company as it seeks to achieve more energy-efficient operations and customer solutions.    
(e)    Edward E. Hagenlocker – age 74, director since 2008
Vice-Chairman of Ford Motor Company (an automobile manufacturer) from 1996 until his retirement in 1999.
Chairman of Visteon Automotive Systems (a manufacturer and supplier of automobile products) from 1997 to 1999.
Current Directorships:
AmeriSourceBergen Corporation
Other Directorships Held in the Past Five Years:
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Mr. Hagenlocker’s nearly 35 years in the automotive industry, including experience as the vice chairman of the largest independent U.S. automotive company and as chairman of a major automotive systems supplier, brings to Ingersoll Rand extensive expertise in global manufacturing, engineering, design, marketing and channel management, as well as consumer-focused business disciplines. Mr. Hagenlocker’s seven years of service as a member of Trane Inc.’s (formerly American Standard) board of directors provides critical insight into that part of the Company’s business. In addition, his board memberships include businesses engaged in the manufacture of specialty and atmospheric gases for industrial processes, which

5



provides insight into new technologies for our operations, and pharmaceutical distribution and services, which enhances our understanding of trends and developments in the healthcare sector.
(f)    Constance J. Horner age 72, director since 1994
Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institution (a non-partisan research institute) from 1993 to 2005.
Commissioner of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from 1993 to 1998.
Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Personnel from 1991 to 1993.
Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from 1989 to 1991.
Current Directorships:
Pfizer Inc.
Prudential Financial, Inc.
Other Directorships Held in the Past Five Years: None
Other Activities:
Trustee, The Prudential Foundation
Fellow, National Academy of Public Administration
Ms. Horner’s substantial leadership experience and public-policy expertise resulting from her service in two presidential administrations and several U.S. government departments provide Ingersoll Rand with important perspective on matters that directly affect the Company’s operations and financial affairs. In particular, Ms. Horner has deep insight into employee relations, talent development, diversity, operational management and healthcare through her leadership positions at various federal departments and commissions. Ms. Horner’s board memberships afford ongoing engagement in the areas of healthcare, risk management and financial services, all of which have a direct influence on Ingersoll Rand’s success.
(g)    Michael W. Lamach – age 50, Chairman since June 2010 and director since February 2010
President and Chief Executive Officer (since February 2010) of the Company.
President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company from February 2009 to February 2010.
Senior Vice President and President, Trane Commercial Systems, of the Company from June 2008 to September 2009.
Current Directorships:
Iron Mountain Incorporated
Other Directorships Held in the Past Five Years: None
Mr. Lamach’s extensive career of successfully leading global businesses, including ten years with Ingersoll Rand, brings significant experience and expertise to the Company’s management and governance. His 30 years of business leadership encompass global automotive components, controls, security and HVAC systems businesses, representing a broad and diverse range of products and services, markets, channels, applied technologies and operational profiles. In his current role of President and Chief Executive Officer, he led the successful spin-off of the Company’s commercial and residential business and has been instrumental in driving growth and operational excellence initiatives across the Company’s global operations. Mr. Lamach’s board membership with a leading data and records management company provides ongoing insight into trends and developments in the critical areas of data security and information protection and retention.
(h)    Theodore E. Martin – age 74, director since 1996
President and Chief Executive Officer of Barnes Group Inc. (manufacturer and distributor of automotive and aircraft components and maintenance products) from 1995 until his retirement in 1998.
Current Directorships: None
Other Directorships Held in the Past Five Years:
Applied Biosystems, Inc. (formerly known as Applera Corporation)
C. R. Bard, Inc.
Unisys Corporation
Other Activities:
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
Mr. Martin’s experience as chief executive officer of a diversified global industrial firm lends valuable and direct expertise across all aspects of Ingersoll Rand’s operational and financial activities. In particular, Mr. Martin’s leadership of a large industrial manufacturing organization provides practical insight to help drive the Company’s long-term productivity initiatives. His board memberships, which include organizations at the forefront of healthcare products and information technology, enhance the Company’s access to important developments in these sectors.

6



(i)    John P. Surma – age 59, director since 2013
Former Chairman (from 2006-2013) and Chief Executive Officer (from 2004-2013) of United States Steel Corporation (a steel manufacturing company).
Current Directorships:
Marathon Petroleum Corporation
MPLX LP (a publicly traded subsidiary of Marathon Petroleum Corporation)
Concho Resources Inc.
Other Directorships Held in the Past Five Years:
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
Other Activities:
Vice Chairman, U.S. President’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations
Director, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
Mr. Surma’s experience as the former chairman and chief executive officer of a large industrial company provides significant and direct expertise across all aspects of Ingersoll Rand’s operational and financial affairs. In particular, Mr. Surma’s financial experience, having previously served as the chief financial officer of United States Steel Corporation and as a partner of the audit firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, provides the Board with valuable insight into financial reporting and accounting oversight of a public company. Mr. Surma’s board memberships and other activities provide the Board an understanding of developments in the energy sector as the Company seeks to develop more energy-efficient operations and insight into national and international business and trade policy that could impact the Company.
(j)    Richard J. Swift – age 69, Lead Director since 2010 and director since 1995
Chairman of Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council from 2002 through 2006.
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Foster Wheeler Ltd. (provider of design, engineering, construction, manufacturing, management and environmental services) from 1994 to 2001.
Current Directorships:
CVS Caremark Corporation
Hubbell Incorporated
Kaman Corporation
Public Service Enterprise Group
Other Directorships Held in the Past Five Years: None
Mr. Swift’s experience as chairman and chief executive officer of a global engineering firm, the fact that he was licensed professional engineer for 35 years prior to the retirement of his license and his five-year leadership of the advisory organization to a major accounting standards board imparts substantial expertise to all of the Company’s operational and financial matters. His leadership of an organization that was instrumental in some of the world’s most significant engineering projects provides unique insight into the complex systems involved in the efficient and effective development of buildings and industrial operations, which represent key global market segments for Ingersoll Rand’s products and services. Mr. Swift’s board memberships include firms engaged in the manufacture and distribution of industrial, electrical and electronic products, which directly correspond to key elements of the Company’s growth and operational strategies.
(k)    Tony L. White – age 67, director since 1997
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Applied Biosystems Inc. (a developer, manufacturer and marketer of life science systems and genomic information products) from 1995 until his retirement in 2008.
Current Directorships:
C.R. Bard, Inc.
CVS Caremark Corporation
Other Directorships Held in the Past Five Years: None
Mr. White’s extensive management experience, including 13 years as chairman and chief executive officer of an advanced-technology life sciences firm, provides substantial expertise and guidance across all aspects of Ingersoll Rand’s operational and financial affairs. In particular, Mr. White’s leadership of an organization whose success was directly connected to innovation and applied technologies aligns with the Company’s focus on innovation as a key source of growth. The Company benefits from Mr. White’s ongoing board memberships, where developments related to biotechnology and healthcare delivery systems can offer instructive process methodologies to accelerate our innovation efforts.


7



Item 2. Advisory Approval of the Compensation of Our Named Executive Officers
The Company is presenting the following proposal, commonly known as a “Say-on-Pay” proposal, which gives you as a shareholder the opportunity to endorse or not endorse our compensation program for named executive officers by voting for or against the following resolution:
“RESOLVED, that the shareholders approve the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers, as disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables, and the related disclosure contained in the Company’s proxy statement.”
While our Board of Directors intends to carefully consider the shareholder vote resulting from the proposal, the final vote will not be binding on us and is advisory in nature.
In considering your vote, please be advised that our compensation program for named executive officers is guided by our design principles, as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this Proxy Statement:
Program competitiveness
Pay for performance    
Mix of short and long-term incentives
Internal parity
Shareholder alignment
Business strategy alignment
By following these design principles, we believe that our compensation program for named executive officers is strongly aligned with the long-term interests of our shareholders.
The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR advisory approval of the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables, and the related disclosure contained in this proxy statement.




8



Item 3. Approval of Appointment of Independent Auditors
At the Annual General Meeting, shareholders will be asked to approve the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) as our independent auditors for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2014, and to authorize the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors to set the independent auditors’ remuneration. PwC has been acting as our independent auditors for many years and, both by virtue of its long familiarity with the Company’s affairs and its ability, is considered best qualified to perform this important function.
Representatives of PwC will be present at the Annual General Meeting and will be available to respond to appropriate questions. They will have an opportunity to make a statement if they so desire.
The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR the proposal to approve the appointment of PwC as independent auditors of the Company and to authorize the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors to set the auditors’ remuneration.
Audit Committee Report
While management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements and the reporting process, including the system of internal controls, the Audit Committee reviews the Company’s audited financial statements and financial reporting process on behalf of the Board of Directors. The independent auditors are responsible for performing an independent audit of the Company’s consolidated financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and to issue a report thereon. The Audit Committee monitors those processes. In this context, the Audit Committee has met and held discussions with management and the independent auditors regarding the fair and complete presentation of the Company’s results. The Audit Committee has discussed significant accounting policies applied by the Company in its financial statements, as well as alternative treatments. Management has represented to the Audit Committee that the Company’s consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles, and the Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed the consolidated financial statements with management and the independent auditors. The Audit Committee also discussed with the independent auditors the matters required to be discussed by Auditing Standard No. 16, “Communications with Audit Committees” issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).
In addition, the Audit Committee has received and reviewed the written disclosures and the letter from PwC required by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding PwC’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence and discussed with PwC the auditors’ independence from the Company and its management in connection with the matters stated therein. The Audit Committee also considered whether the independent auditors’ provision of non-audit services to the Company is compatible with the auditors’ independence. The Audit Committee has concluded that the independent auditors are independent from the Company and its management.
The Audit Committee discussed with the Company’s internal and independent auditors the overall scope and plans for their respective audits. The Audit Committee meets separately with the internal and independent auditors, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their examinations, the evaluations of the Company’s internal controls and the overall quality of the Company’s financial reporting.
In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors, and the Board has approved, that the audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (“2013 Form 10-K”), for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Audit Committee has selected PwC, subject to shareholder approval, as the Company’s independent auditors for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2014.

AUDIT COMMITTEE
Richard J. Swift (Chair)
Ann C. Berzin
Edward E. Hagenlocker
Theodore E. Martin
John P. Surma


9



Fees of the Independent Auditors
The following table shows the fees paid or accrued by the Company for audit and other services provided by PwC for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012:
 
 
2013
 
2012
Audit Fees (a)
 
$
14,831,000
 
 
$
14,753,000
 
Audit-Related Fees (b)
 
3,985,000
 
 
1,003,000
 
Tax Fees (c)
 
10,785,000
 
 
6,703,000
 
All Other Fees (d)
 
1,643,000
 
 
934,000
 
Total
 
$
31,244,000
 
 
$
23,393,000
 

 
 
(a)
Audit Fees for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, were for professional services rendered for the audits of the Company’s annual consolidated financial statements and its internal controls over financial reporting, including quarterly reviews, statutory audits, issuance of consents, comfort letters and assistance with, and review of, documents filed with the SEC.
 
 
(b)
Audit-Related Fees consist of assurance services that are related to performing the audit and review of our financial statements. Audit-Related Fees for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 include employee benefit plan audits, abandoned and unclaimed property tax assessments, systems implementation risk assessment, comfort letter related to bond offering of disposed businesses and carve-out audits of disposed businesses primarily related to the Spin-off. Audit-Related Fees for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 include employee benefit plan audits, abandoned and unclaimed property tax assessments and systems implementation risk assessment.
 
 
(c)
Tax Fees for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 include consulting and compliance services in the U.S. and non-U.S. locations primarily related to Spin-off cost.
 
 
(d)
All Other Fees for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 include trading platform redesign services, advisory services for the transition of insourcing of information technology services and license fees for technical accounting software. All Other Fees for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 include trading platform redesign services, integrated supply chain materials and parts planning and license fees for technical accounting software.
The Audit Committee has adopted policies and procedures which require that the Audit Committee pre-approve all non-audit services that may be provided to the Company by its independent auditors. The policy: (i) provides for pre-approval of an annual budget for each type of service; (ii) requires Audit Committee approval of specific projects over $100,000, even if included in the approved budget; and (iii) requires Audit Committee approval if the forecast of expenditures exceeds the approved budget on any type of service. The Audit Committee pre-approved all of the services described under “Audit-Related Fees,” “Tax Fees” and “All Other Fees.” The Audit Committee has determined that the provision of all such non-audit services is compatible with maintaining the independence of PwC.


10



Item 4. Renewal of the Directors’ existing authority to issue shares.
Under Irish law, directors of an Irish public limited company must have authority from its shareholders to issue any shares, including shares which are part of the company’s authorized but unissued share capital. Our shareholders provided the Directors with this authorization for a period of five years when our articles of association were adopted in 2009. Because this five-year share authorization period will expire in July 2014, we are presenting this proposal to renew the Directors’ authority to issue our authorized shares on the terms set forth below.
We are seeking approval to authorize our Directors, upon expiration of our existing authority to issue up to 33% of our issued ordinary share capital as of April 8, 2014 (the latest practicable date before this proxy statement), for a period expiring 18 months from the passing of this resolution, unless renewed.
Granting the Directors this authority is a routine matter for public companies incorporated in Ireland and is consistent with Irish market practice. This authority is fundamental to our business and enables us to issue shares, including in connection with our equity compensation plans (where required) and, if applicable, funding acquisitions and raising capital. We are not asking you to approve an increase in our authorized share capital or to approve a specific issuance of shares. Instead, approval of this proposal will only grant the Directors the authority to issue shares that are already authorized under our articles upon the terms below. In addition, we note that, because we are a NYSE-listed company, our shareholders continue to benefit from the protections afforded to them under the rules and regulations of the NYSE and SEC, including those rules that limit our ability to issue shares in specified circumstances. Furthermore, we note that this authorization is required as a matter of Irish law and is not otherwise required for other U.S. companies listed on the NYSE with whom we compete. Accordingly, approval of this resolution would merely place us on par with other NYSE-listed companies.
As required under Irish law, the resolution in respect of proposal no. 4 is an ordinary resolution that requires the affirmative vote of a simple majority of the votes cast.
The text of this resolution is as follows:
“That the Directors be and are hereby generally and unconditionally authorized with effect from July 1, 2014 to exercise all powers of the Company to allot relevant securities (within the meaning of Section 20 of the Companies (Amendment) Act 1983) up to an aggregate nominal amount of $88,220,219 (88,220,219 shares) (being equivalent to approximately 33% of the aggregate nominal value of the issued ordinary share capital of the Company as of April 8, 2014 (the latest practicable date before this proxy statement)), and the authority conferred by this resolution shall expire 18 months from the passing of this resolution, unless previously renewed, varied or revoked; provided that the Company may make an offer or agreement before the expiry of this authority, which would or might require any such securities to be allotted after this authority has expired, and in that case, the directors may allot relevant securities in pursuance of any such offer or agreement as if the authority conferred hereby had not expired.”
The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR renewing the Directors’ authority to issue shares.


11



Item 5: Renewal of Directors’ existing authority to issue shares for cash without first offering shares to existing shareholders.
Under Irish law, unless otherwise authorized, when an Irish public limited company issues shares for cash, it is required first to offer those shares on the same or more favorable terms to existing shareholders of the company on a pro-rata basis (commonly referred to as the statutory pre-emption right). Our shareholders provided the Directors with the authority to issue shares as if this statutory pre-emption right did not apply for a period of five years when our articles of association were adopted in 2009. Because this five-year share authorization period will expire in July 2014, we are presenting this proposal to renew the Directors’ authority to opt-out of the pre-emption right on the terms set forth below.
We are seeking approval to authorize our Directors, upon expiration of our existing authority to opt-out of the statutory pre-emption rights provision in the event of (1) the issuance of shares for cash in connection with any rights issue and (2) any other issuance of shares for cash, if the issuance is limited to up to 5% of our issued ordinary share capital as of April 8, 2014 (the latest practicable date before this proxy statement), for a period expiring 18 months from the passing of this resolution, unless renewed.
Granting the Directors this authority is a routine matter for public companies incorporated in Ireland and is consistent with Irish market practice. Similar to the authorization sought for Item 4, this authority is fundamental to our business and enables us to issue shares under our equity compensation plans (where required) and if applicable, will facilitate our ability to fund acquisitions and otherwise raise capital. We are not asking you to approve an increase in our authorized share capital. Instead, approval of this proposal will only grant the Directors the authority to issue shares in the manner already permitted under our articles upon the terms below. Without this authorization, in each case where we issue shares for cash, we would first have to offer those shares on the same or more favorable terms to all of our existing shareholders. This requirement could undermine the operation of our compensation plans and cause delays in the completion of acquisitions and capital raising for our business. Furthermore, we note that this authorization is required as a matter of Irish law and is not otherwise required for other U.S. companies listed on the NYSE with whom we compete. Accordingly, approval of this resolution would merely place us on par with other NYSE-listed companies.
As required under Irish law, the resolution in respect of this proposal is a special resolution that requires the affirmative vote of at least 75% of the votes cast.
The text of the resolution in respect of this proposal is as follows:
“As a special resolution, that, subject to the passing of the resolution in respect of Item 4 as set out above and with effect from July 1, 2014, the directors be and are hereby empowered pursuant to Section 24 of the Companies (Amendment) Act 1983 to allot equity securities (as defined in Section 23 of that Act) for cash, pursuant to the authority conferred by proposal no. 4 as if sub-section (1) of Section 23 did not apply to any such allotment, provided that this power shall be limited to:
(a) the allotment of equity securities in connection with a rights issue in favor of the holders of ordinary shares (including rights to subscribe for, or convert into, ordinary shares) where the equity securities respectively attributable to the interests of such holders are proportional (as nearly as may be) to the respective numbers of ordinary shares held by them (but subject to such exclusions or other arrangements as the directors may deem necessary or expedient to deal with fractional entitlements that would otherwise arise, or with legal or practical problems under the laws of, or the requirements of any recognized regulatory body or any stock exchange in, any territory, or otherwise); and
(b) the allotment (otherwise than pursuant to sub-paragraph (a) above) of equity securities up to an aggregate nominal value of $13,518,215 (13,518,215 shares) (being equivalent to approximately 5% of the aggregate nominal value of the issued ordinary share capital of the Company as of April 8, 2014 (the latest practicable date before this proxy statement)) and the authority conferred by this resolution shall expire 18 months from the passing of this resolution, unless previously renewed, varied or revoked; provided that the Company may make an offer or agreement before the expiry of this authority, which would or might require any such securities to be allotted after this authority has expired, and in that case, the directors may allot equity securities in pursuance of any such offer or agreement as if the authority conferred hereby had not expired.”
The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR renewing the Directors’ authority to opt-out of statutory pre-emption rights.


12



Item 6: Determine the price at which the Company can reissue shares held as treasury shares.
Our open-market share repurchases (redemptions) and other share buyback activities may result in ordinary shares being acquired and held by the Company as treasury shares. We may reissue treasury shares that we acquire through our various share buyback activities including in connection with our executive compensation program and our director programs.
Under Irish law, our shareholders must authorize the price range at which we may reissue any shares held in treasury. In this proposal, that price range is expressed as a minimum and maximum percentage of the closing market price of our ordinary shares on the NYSE the day preceding the day on which the relevant share is re-issued. Under Irish law, this authorization expires 18 months after its passing unless renewed.
The authority being sought from shareholders provides that the minimum and maximum prices at which an ordinary share held in treasury may be reissued are 95% and 120%, respectively, of the closing market price of the ordinary shares on the NYSE the day preceding the day on which the relevant share is re-issued, except as described below with respect to obligations under employee share schemes, which may be at a minimum price of nominal value. Any reissuance of treasury shares will be at price levels that the Board considers in the best interests of our shareholders.
As required under Irish law, the resolution in respect of this proposal is a special resolution that requires the affirmative vote of at least 75% of the votes cast.
The text of the resolution in respect of this proposal is as follows:
“As a special resolution, that the reissue price range at which any treasury shares held by the Company may be reissued off-market shall be as follows:
(a)
the maximum price at which such treasury share may be reissued off-market shall be an amount equal to 120% of the “market price”; and
(b)
the minimum price at which a treasury share may be reissued off-market shall be the nominal value of the share where such a share is required to satisfy an obligation under an employee share scheme or any option schemes operated by the Company or, in all other cases, an amount equal to 95% of the “market price”; and
(c)
for the purposes of this resolution, the “market price” shall mean the closing market price of the ordinary shares on the NYSE the day preceding the day on which the relevant share is re-issued.
FURTHER, that this authority to reissue treasury shares shall expire at 18 months from the date of the passing of this resolution unless previously varied or renewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 209 of the Companies Act 1990.”
The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote FOR the proposal to determine the price at which the Company can reissue shares held as treasury shares.


13



CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Corporate Governance Guidelines
Our Corporate Governance Guidelines, together with the charters of the various Board committees, provide a framework for the corporate governance of the Company. The following is a summary of our Corporate Governance Guidelines. A copy of our Corporate Governance Guidelines, as well as the charters of each of our Board committees, are available on our website at www.ingersollrand.com under the heading “Investor Relations – Corporate Governance.”
Role of the Board of Directors
The Company’s business is managed under the direction of the Board of Directors. The role of the Board of Directors is to oversee the management and governance of the Company and monitor senior management’s performance.
Board Responsibilities
The Board of Directors’ core responsibilities include:
selecting, monitoring, evaluating and compensating senior management;
assuring that management succession planning is ongoing;    
reviewing the Company’s financial controls and reporting systems;    
overseeing the Company’s management of enterprise risk;
reviewing the Company’s ethical standards and compliance procedures; and
evaluating the performance of the Board of Directors, Board committees and individual directors.
Board Leadership Structure
The positions of Chairman of the Board and CEO at the Company are held by the same person, except in unusual circumstances, such as during a CEO transition. This policy has worked well for the Company. It is the Board of Directors’ view that the Company’s corporate governance principles, the quality, stature and substantive business knowledge of the members of the Board, as well as the Board’s culture of open communication with the CEO and senior management are conducive to Board effectiveness with a combined Chairman and CEO position.
In addition, the Board of Directors has a strong, independent Lead Director and it believes this role adequately addresses the need for independent leadership and an organizational structure for the independent directors. The Board of Directors appoints a Lead Director for a three-year minimum term from among the Board’s independent directors. The Lead Director coordinates the activities of all of the Board’s independent directors. The Lead Director is the principal confidant to the CEO and ensures that the Board of Directors has an open, trustful relationship with the Company’s senior management team. In addition to the duties of all directors, as set forth in the Company’s Governance Guidelines, the specific responsibilities of the Lead Director are as follows:
Chair the meetings of the independent directors when the Chairman is not present;
Ensure the full participation and engagement of all Board members in deliberations;
Lead the Board of Directors in all deliberations involving the CEO’s employment, including hiring, contract negotiations, performance evaluations, and dismissal;    
Counsel the Chairman on issues of interest/concern to directors and encourage all directors to engage the Chairman with their interests and concerns;
Work with the Chairman to develop an appropriate schedule of Board meetings and approve such schedule, to ensure that the directors have sufficient time for discussion of all agenda items, while not interfering with the flow of Company operations;    
Work with the Chairman to develop the Board and Committee agendas and approve the final agendas;
Keep abreast of key Company activities and advise the Chairman as to the quality, quantity and timeliness of the flow of information from Company management that is necessary for the directors to effectively and responsibly perform their duties; although Company management is responsible for the preparation of materials for the Board of Directors, the Lead Director will approve information provided to the Board and may specifically request the inclusion of certain material;
Engage consultants who report directly to the Board of Directors and assist in recommending consultants that work directly for Board Committees;
Work in conjunction with the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee in compliance with Governance Committee processes to interview all Board candidates and make recommendations to the Board of Directors;    
Assist the Board of Directors and Company officers in assuring compliance with and implementation of the Company’s Governance Guidelines; work in conjunction with the Corporate Governance Committee to recommend revisions to the Governance Guidelines;    

14



Call, coordinate and develop the agenda for and chair executive sessions of the Board’s independent directors; act as principal liaison between the independent directors and the CEO;    
Work in conjunction with the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee to identify for appointment the members of the various Board Committees, as well as selection of the Committee chairs;    
Be available for consultation and direct communication with major shareholders;    
Make a commitment to serve in the role of Lead Director for a minimum of three years; and    
Help set the tone for the highest standards of ethics and integrity.
Mr. Swift has been the Company’s Lead Director since January 2010.
Board Risk Oversight
The Board of Directors has oversight responsibility of the processes established to report and monitor systems for material risks applicable to the Company. The Board of Directors focuses on the Company’s general risk management strategy and the most significant risks facing the Company and ensures that appropriate risk mitigation strategies are implemented by management. The full Board is responsible for considering strategic risks and succession planning and, at each Board meeting, receives reports from each Committee as to risk oversight within their areas of responsibility. The Board of Directors has delegated to its various committees the oversight of risk management practices for categories of risk relevant to their functions as follows:
The Audit Committee oversees risks associated with the Company’s systems of disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting, as well as the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.
The Compensation Committee considers risks related to the attraction and retention of talent and risks related to the design of compensation programs and arrangements.
The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee oversees risks associated with sustainability.
The Finance Committee oversees risks associated with foreign exchange, insurance, credit and debt.
The Company has appointed the Chief Financial Officer as its Chief Risk Officer and, in that role, the Chief Risk Officer periodically reports on risk management policies and practices to the relevant Board Committee or to the full Board so that any decisions can be made as to any required changes in the Company’s risk management and mitigation strategies or in the Board’s oversight of these.
Finally, as part of its oversight of the Company’s executive compensation program, the Compensation Committee considers the impact of the Company’s executive compensation program and the incentives created by the compensation awards that it administers on the Company’s risk profile. In addition, the Company reviews all of its compensation policies and procedures, including the incentives that they create and factors that may reduce the likelihood of excessive risk taking, to determine whether they present a significant risk to the Company. Based on this review, the Company has concluded that its compensation policies and procedures are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.
Director Compensation and Stock Ownership
It is the policy of the Board of Directors that directors’ fees be the sole compensation received from the Company by any non-employee director. The Company has a share ownership requirement of four times the annual cash retainer paid to the directors. Directors must achieve the share ownership minimum within five years of joining the Board of Directors. Once attaining the minimum level of Company stock ownership, a director must retain this minimum level of Company stock ownership until their resignation or retirement from the Board.
Board Size and Composition
The Board of Directors consists of a substantial majority of independent, non-employee directors. In addition, our Corporate Governance Guidelines require that all members of the committees of the Board must be independent directors. The Board of Directors has the following four standing committees: Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, and Finance Committee. The Board of Directors has determined that each member of each of these committees is “independent” as defined in the NYSE listing standards and the Company’s Guidelines for Determining Independence of Directors. Committee memberships and chairs are rotated periodically.



15



Board Diversity
The Company’s policy on Board diversity relates to the selection of nominees for the Board of Directors. In selecting a nominee for the Board, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee considers the skills, expertise and background that would complement the existing Board and ensure that its members are of sufficiently diverse and independent backgrounds, recognizing that the Company’s businesses and operations are diverse and global in nature. The Board of Directors has two female directors, one African-American director and one Hispanic director out of a total of 12 directors.
Board Advisors
The Board of Directors and its committees may, under their respective charters, retain their own advisors to carry out their responsibilities.
Executive Sessions
The Company’s independent directors meet privately in regularly scheduled executive sessions, without management present, to consider such matters as the independent directors deem appropriate. These executive sessions are required to be held no less than twice each year.
Board Evaluation
The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee assists the Board in evaluating its performance and the performance of the Board committees. Each committee also conducts an annual self-evaluation. The effectiveness of individual directors is considered each year when the directors stand for re-nomination.
Director Orientation and Education
The Company has developed an orientation program for new directors and provides continuing education for all directors. In addition, the directors are given full access to management and corporate staff as a means of providing additional information.
Director Nomination Process
The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee reviews the composition of the full Board to identify the qualifications and areas of expertise needed to further enhance the composition of the Board, makes recommendations to the Board concerning the appropriate size and needs of the Board and, on its own or with the assistance of management, a search firm or others, identifies candidates with those qualifications. In considering candidates, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee will take into account all factors it considers appropriate, including breadth of experience, understanding of business and financial issues, ability to exercise sound judgment, diversity, leadership, and achievements and experience in matters affecting business and industry. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee considers the entirety of each candidate’s credentials and believes that at a minimum each nominee should satisfy the following criteria: highest character and integrity, experience and understanding of strategy and policy-setting, sufficient time to devote to Board matters, and no conflict of interest that would interfere with performance as a director. Shareholders may recommend candidates for consideration for Board membership by sending the recommendation to the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, in care of the Secretary of the Company. Candidates recommended by shareholders are evaluated in the same manner as director candidates identified by any other means.
Director Retirement
It is the policy of the Board of Directors that each non-employee director must retire at the annual general meeting immediately following his or her 75th birthday. Directors who change the occupation they held when initially elected must offer to resign from the Board of Directors. At that time, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee reviews the continued appropriateness of Board membership under the new circumstances and makes a recommendation to the Board of Directors. Employee directors, including the CEO, must retire from the Board of Directors at the time of a change in their status as an officer of the Company, unless the policy is waived by the Board.

Director Independence
The Board of Directors has determined that all of our current directors, except M.W. Lamach, who is an employee of the Company, are independent under the standards set forth in Exhibit I to our Corporate Governance Guidelines, which are consistent with the NYSE listing standards. In determining the independence of directors, the Board evaluated transactions between the Company and entities with which directors were affiliated that occurred in the ordinary course of business and that were provided on the same terms and conditions available to other customers. A copy of Exhibit I to our Corporate Governance Guidelines is available on our website, www.ingersollrand.com, under the heading “Investor Relations—Corporate Governance.”


16



Communications with Directors
Shareholders and other interested parties wishing to communicate with the Board of Directors, the non-employee directors or any individual director (including our Lead Director and Compensation Committee Chair) may do so either by sending a communication to the Board and/or a particular Board member, in care of the Secretary of the Company, or by e-mail at irboard@irco.com. Depending upon the nature of the communication and to whom it is directed, the Secretary will: (a) forward the communication to the appropriate director or directors; (b) forward the communication to the relevant department within the Company; or (c) attempt to handle the matter directly (for example, a communication dealing with a share ownership matter).

Code of Conduct
The Company has adopted a worldwide Code of Conduct, applicable to all employees, directors and officers, including our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer and our Controller. The Code of Conduct meets the requirements of a “code of ethics” as defined by Item 406 of Regulation S-K, as well as the requirements of a “code of business conduct and ethics” under the NYSE listing standards. The Code of Conduct covers topics including, but not limited to, conflicts of interest, confidentiality of information, and compliance with laws and regulations. A copy of the Code of Conduct is available on our website located at www.ingersollrand.com under the heading “Investor Relations—Corporate Governance.” Amendments to, or waivers of the provisions of, the Code of Conduct, if any, made with respect to any of our directors and executive officers will be posted on our website.

Anti-Hedging Policy and Other Restrictions
The Company prohibits its directors and executive officers from (i) purchasing any financial instruments designed to hedge or offset any decrease in the market value of Company securities and (ii) engaging in any form of short-term speculative trading in Company securities. Directors and executive officers are also prohibited from holding Company securities in a margin account or pledging Company securities as collateral for a loan unless the Senior Vice President and General Counsel provides pre-clearance after the director or executive officer clearly demonstrates the financial capability to repay the loan without resort to the pledged securities.


17



Committees of the Board
Audit Committee
Members:
Richard J. Swift (Chair)
 
Ann C. Berzin
 
Edward E. Hagenlocker
 
Theodore E. Martin
 
John P. Surma
Key Functions:
Review annual audited and quarterly financial statements, as well as the Company’s disclosures under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations,” with management and the independent auditors.
Obtain and review periodic reports, at least annually, from management assessing the effectiveness of the Company’s internal controls and procedures for financial reporting.
Review the Company’s processes to assure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and corporate policy.
Recommend the public accounting firm to be proposed for appointment by the shareholders as our independent auditors and review the performance of the independent auditors.
Review the scope of the audit and the findings and approve the fees of the independent auditors.
Approve in advance permitted audit and non-audit services to be performed by the independent auditors.
Satisfy itself as to the independence of the independent auditors and ensure receipt of their annual independence statement.
The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is “independent” for purposes of the applicable rules and regulations of the SEC, as defined in the NYSE listing standards and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and has determined that each member of the Audit Committee meets the qualifications of an “audit committee financial expert,” as that term is defined by rules of the SEC.
A copy of the charter of the Audit Committee is available on our website, www.ingersollrand.com, under the heading “Investor Relations—Corporate Governance.”
Compensation Committee
Members:
Tony L. White (Chair)
 
John Bruton
 
Jared L. Cohon
 
Gary D. Forsee
 
Constance J. Horner
Key Functions:
Establish executive compensation policies.
Review and approve the goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of the Chief Executive Officer, evaluate the Chief Executive Officer’s performance against those goals and objectives and set the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation level based on this evaluation. The Compensation Committee Chair presents all compensation decisions pertaining to the Chief Executive Officer to the full Board of Directors.
Approve compensation of officers and key employees.
Review and approve executive compensation and benefit programs.
Administer the Company’s equity compensation plans.
Review and recommend significant changes in principal employee benefit programs.
Approve and oversee Compensation Committee consultants.


18



For a discussion concerning the processes and procedures for determining executive and director compensation and the role of executive officers and compensation consultants in determining or recommending the amount or form of compensation, see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” and “Compensation of Directors,” respectively.
The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Compensation Committee is “independent” as defined in the NYSE listing standards and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines. In addition, the Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Compensation Committee qualifies as a “Non-Employee Director” within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and an “outside director” within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code.
A copy of the charter of the Compensation Committee is available on our website, www.ingersollrand.com, under the heading “Investor Relations—Corporate Governance.”
Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
Members:
Gary D. Forsee (Chair)
 
John Bruton
 
Jared L. Cohon
 
Constance J. Horner
 
Nelson Peltz
 
Tony L. White
Key Functions:
Identify individuals qualified to become directors and recommend the candidates for all directorships.
Recommend individuals for election as officers.
Review the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and make recommendations for changes.
Consider questions of independence and possible conflicts of interest of directors and executive officers.
Take a leadership role in shaping the corporate governance of the Company.
Oversee the Company’s sustainability efforts.
The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is “independent” as defined in the NYSE listing standards and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.
A copy of the charter of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is available on our website, www.ingersollrand.com , under the heading “Investor Relations—Corporate Governance.”
Finance Committee
Members:
Ann C. Berzin (Chair)
 
Edward E. Hagenlocker
 
Theodore E. Martin
 
Nelson Peltz
 
John P. Surma
 
Richard J. Swift
Key Functions:
Review proposed borrowings and issuances of securities.
Recommend to the Board of Directors the dividends to be paid on our ordinary shares.
Consider and recommend for approval by the Board of Directors the repurchase of the Company’s shares.
Review cash management policies.
Review periodic reports of the investment performance of the Company’s employee benefit plans.
The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Finance Committee is “independent” as defined in the NYSE listing standards and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.
A copy of the charter of the Finance Committee is available on our website, www.ingersollrand.com, under the heading “Investor Relations—Corporate Governance.”

19



Board, Committee and Annual Meeting Attendance
The Board of Directors and its committees held the following number of meetings during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013:
     Board
7
Audit Committee
10
Compensation Committee
8
Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
7
Finance Committee
8
Each incumbent director attended 95% or more of the total number of meetings of the Board of Directors and the committees on which he or she served during the year. The Company’s non-employee directors held five independent director meetings without management present during the fiscal year 2013. It is the Board’s general practice to hold independent director meetings in connection with regularly scheduled Board meetings.
The Company expects all Board members to attend the annual general meeting, but from time to time other commitments prevent all directors from attending the meeting. All of the directors attended the most recent annual general meeting of shareholders, which was held on June 6, 2013.


20



Compensation of Directors
Director Compensation
Our director compensation program is designed to compensate non-employee directors fairly for work required for a company of our size and scope and align their interests with the long-term interests of our shareholders. The program reflects our desire to attract, retain and use the expertise of highly qualified people serving on the Company’s Board of Directors. Employee directors do not receive any additional compensation for serving as a director.
Our 2013 director compensation program for non-employee directors consisted of the following elements:
Compensation Element
 
Compensation Value
Annual Cash Retainer
 
$
240,000
 
Audit Committee Chair Cash Retainer
 
$
30,000
 
Compensation Committee Chair Cash Retainer
 
$
15,000
 
Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee Chair and
Finance Committee Chair Cash Retainer
 
$
10,000
 
Audit Committee Member Cash Retainer (other than Chair)
 
$
7,500
 
Lead Director Cash Retainer
 
$
50,000
 
Additional Meetings or Unscheduled Planning Session Fees *
 
$ 2,500 (per meeting or session)
*
The Board and each Committee, other than Audit, has 6 regularly scheduled meetings each year. The Audit Committee has 9 regularly scheduled meetings each year.
In addition, non-employee directors were eligible to receive a tax equalization payment if the Irish income taxes owed on their director compensation exceed the income taxes owed on such compensation in their country of residence. Without these tax equalization payments, a director would be subject to double taxation since they are already paying taxes on their director income in their country of residence. We believe these tax equalization payments were appropriate to ensure our ability to continue to attract highly qualified persons who do not reside in Ireland. In 2013, five non-employee directors received a tax equalization payment for the year 2012 and we anticipate in 2014 that some of our non-employee directors will receive a tax equalization payment for the year 2013.
The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee periodically reviews the compensation level of our non-employee directors in consultation with the Committee’s independent compensation consultant and makes recommendations to the Board of Directors. Based on its most recent review, our Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee recommended certain changes to director compensation effective January 1, 2014, which were approved by our Board. These changes included the following:
An increase in the annual retainer to $285,000 with one half of the retainer paid in cash and one half paid in RSUs;
An increase in the Compensation Committee Chair Cash Retainer to $20,000;
An increase in the cash retainers for the Corporate Governance and Nominating Chair and the Finance Committee Chair to $15,000;
Elimination of tax equalization payments on retainers beginning with the retainers earned for the 2014 fiscal year; and
Updating our director share ownership requirement as described below effective as of January 1, 2014.
Share Ownership Requirement
To align the interests of directors with shareholders, the Board of Directors has adopted a share ownership requirement of four times the annual cash retainer paid to the directors. Directors must achieve the share ownership minimum within five years of joining the Board of Directors. Once attaining the minimum level of Company stock ownership, a director must retain this minimum level of Company stock ownership until their resignation or retirement from the Board. In setting the share ownership requirement, the Board of Directors considered the input of the independent compensation consultant, the Company’s current stock price and the period of time it would take a director to reach the required ownership level.


21




2013 Director Compensation
The compensation paid or credited to our non-employee directors for the year ended December 31, 2013, is summarized in the table below.
Name
 
Fees earned
or paid
in cash
($)(a)  
 
All Other
Compensation
($)(b)  
 
Total  
($)
A. C. Berzin
 
265,000
 
 
110,572
 
 
375,572
 
J. Bruton
 
247,500
 
 
 
 
247,500
 
J. L. Cohon
 
247,500
 
 
173
 
 
247,673
 
G. D. Forsee
 
272,500
 
 
33,733
 
 
306,233
 
P. C. Godsoe (c)
 
133,750
 
 
 
 
133,750
 
E. E. Hagenlocker
 
255,000
 
 
30,990
 
 
285,990
 
C. J. Horner
 
247,500
 
 
48,881
 
 
296,381
 
T. E. Martin
 
255,000
 
 
 
 
255,000
 
N. Peltz (d)
 
252,500
 
 
 
 
252,500
 
J. P. Surma
 
250,000
 
 
 
 
250,000
 
R. J. Swift
 
335,000
 
 
 
 
335,000
 
T. L. White
 
262,500
 
 
 
 
262,500
 
____________________
(a)
The amounts in this column represent the following annual cash retainer, the Committee Chair retainers, the Audit Committee member retainer, the Lead Director retainer, and the Board, Committee and other meeting or session fees:
Name
 
Cash
Retainer
($)  
 
Committee
Chair
Retainer
($)  
 
Audit
Committee
Member
Retainer
($)  
 
Lead
Director  
Retainer   
Fees
($)  
 
Board,
Committee
and Other
Meeting or
Session
Fees
($)  
A. C. Berzin
 
240,000
 
 
5,000
 
 
7,500
 
 
 
 
12,500
 
J. Bruton
 
240,000
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7,500
 
J. L. Cohon
 
240,000
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7,500
 
G. D. Forsee
 
240,000
 
 
10,000
 
 
 
 
 
 
22,500
 
P. C. Godsoe
 
120,000
 
 
5,000
 
 
3,750
 
 
 
 
5,000
 
E. E. Hagenlocker
 
240,000
 
 
 
 
7,500
 
 
 
 
7,500
 
C. J. Horner
 
240,000
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7,500
 
T. E. Martin
 
240,000
 
 
 
 
7,500
 
 
 
 
7,500
 
N. Peltz
 
240,000
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12,500
 
J. P. Surma
 
240,000
 
 
 
 
7,500
 
 
 
 
2,500
 
R. J. Swift
 
240,000
 
 
30,000
 
 
 
 
50,000
 
 
15,000
 
T. L. White
 
240,000
 
 
15,000
 
 
 
 
 
 
7,500
 
(b)    Represents tax equalization payments made in 2013.
(c)    Peter C. Godsoe retired effective June 6, 2013.
(d)    Fees earned by Mr. Peltz are paid to Trian Fund Management, L.P. (“Trian”).


22



For each non-employee director at December 31, 2013, the following table reflects unexercised stock options, all of which are vested:
Name  
 
Number of stock options
A. C. Berzin
 
 
J. Bruton
 
 
J. L. Cohon
 
30,240
 
G. D. Forsee
 
 
P. C. Godsoe
 
 
E. E. Hagenlocker
 
 
C. J. Horner
 
 
T. E. Martin
 
 
N. Peltz
 
 
J. P. Surma
 
 
R. J. Swift
 
 
T. L. White
 
 


23



COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) set forth below provides an overview of our executive compensation programs, including the philosophy and objectives of such programs, as well as a discussion of how awards are determined for our Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”). These NEOs include our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), our Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), and our three most highly compensated executive officers from the 2013 fiscal year. In addition, two other individuals are included as NEOs in 2013; however, they were no longer serving as executive officers at the end of 2013. The current executive officers serving as NEOs included are:
Mr. Michael W. Lamach, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer;
Ms. Susan K. Carter, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer;
Mr. Gary S. Michel, our Senior Vice President and President, Residential HVAC North America;
Mr. Didier P. M. Teirlinck, Ph.D., our Executive Vice President, Climate segment; and
Mr. Robert G. Zafari, our Executive Vice President, Industrial segment.
The former executive officers serving as NEOs included are:
Mr. Steven R. Shawley, our former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and
Mr. John W. Conover IV, our former Senior Vice President and President, Security Technologies.
This discussion and analysis is divided into the following sections:
I.
Executive Summary.
II.
Compensation Philosophy and Design Principles.
III.
Factors Considered in the Determination of Target Total Direct Compensation.
IV.
Role of the Compensation Committee, Independent Advisor, and Committee Actions.
V.
Compensation Program Descriptions and Compensation Decisions.
VI.
Other Compensation and Tax Matters.
I. Executive Summary
Effective December 1, 2013, we successfully completed the spin-off of our commercial and residential security businesses (the “Spin-off”) into an independent, publicly traded company, Allegion plc (“Allegion”). In conjunction with the Spin-off, we reorganized our structure from four business sectors into two business segments, Climate and Industrial. This new structure allows the Company to provide greater focus on growth, continue implementation of our business operating system, build on our successful operational excellence philosophy, and reduce complexity and costs.
The Spin-off and our reorganization did not impact the basic design of our executive compensation programs. Consistent with our historical intent, the design of these programs allows Ingersoll Rand to attract, retain and focus the talents and energies of executives who are capable of meeting the Company’s current and future goals, most notably, the creation of sustainable shareholder value. However, to offset an unintended impact of the Spin-off, payouts under our 2013 Annual Incentive Matrix (“AIM”) program and our Performance Share Program (“PSP”) for the 2011- 2013 performance period were determined based on full year 2013 results inclusive of Allegion. In addition, the compensation level of several NEOs was increased to reflect material changes in position accountability and greater scope of responsibilities as a result of the reorganization.
Overall, our executive compensation programs were designed by incorporating the following principles:
(i)
program competitiveness,
(ii)
pay for performance,
(iii)
mix of short and long-term incentives,
(iv)
internal parity,
(v)
shareholder alignment, and
(vi)
business strategy alignment.

24




Consistent with these principles, the Compensation Committee has adopted executive compensation programs with a strong link between pay and the achievement of short and long-term Company goals. The primary elements of the executive compensation programs are:
Total Direct Compensation
 
 
Element1
 
Objective of Element
 
 
Base Salary
 
Fixed cash compensation.
 
 
Annual Incentive
(the Annual Incentive Matrix or “AIM”)
 
Variable cash incentive compensation where any award earned is based on performance against pre-defined annual revenue (“Revenue”), Operating Income (“OI”), cash flow (“Cash Flow”) and OI margin percent objectives, as well as individual performance.
 
 
Long-Term Incentives (“LTI”)
 
Variable long-term incentive compensation where performance is aligned with the Company’s stock price and is awarded in the form of stock options, Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) and Performance Share Units (“PSUs”). PSUs are only payable if the Company’s Earnings Per Share (“EPS”) and Total Shareholder Return (“TSR”) relative to companies in the S&P 500 Industrials Index exceed threshold performance against pre-defined objectives.
 
1 See Section V, “Compensation Program Descriptions and Compensation Decisions”, for additional discussion on these elements of compensation.
As illustrated in the charts below, the Compensation Committee places significant emphasis on variable compensation (AIM and LTI) so that a substantial percentage of each NEO’s total direct compensation is contingent on the successful achievement of the Company’s short-term and long-term goals.
2013 Results
In a year where we successfully implemented extensive organizational change with the successful Spin-off and the reorganization of our Company, we also achieved strong financial performance. Specifically, the following results, (inclusive of the Allegion business for the full year), were realized in 2013:
    Adjusted annual Revenue of $14.509 billion, an increase of 3% over 2012;
•    Adjusted OI of $1.639 billion, an increase of 8% over 2012;
    Adjusted OI margin of 11.3%, an increase of 0.5 percentage points from 10.8% in 2012;
    Adjusted Cash Flow of $1.153 billion an increase of 14% over 2012;
    Adjusted EPS of $3.63 excluding one-time spin related expense, an increase of 10% over 2012; and
3-year EPS growth (2011 - 2013) of 68.1%, which ranks at approximately the 75th percentile of the companies in the S&P 500 Industrials Index.
The Spin-off and the reorganization were completed late in the fourth quarter of 2013. As a result, adjustments to include full year 2013 results inclusive of Allegion were necessary to ensure that performance under the 2013 AIM and the 2011 – 2013 PSP programs was measured on a basis consistent with how performance goals were established.
For the 2013 AIM program, performance was measured using full year financial results adjusted to reflect the organizational structure in place at the time that performance objectives were approved by the Compensation Committee in February 2013 and to exclude one-time costs associated with the Spin-off and our reorganization. Based on our adjusted 2013 results for Revenue, OI, Cash

25



Flow and OI margin, we achieved an AIM financial score of 124.6 % of target for the enterprise. Our other sector presidents who were NEOs in 2013 achieved AIM financial scores of 187.5% (Climate), 63.7% (Industrial), 200.0% (Residential) and 143.7% (Security) of target, based on achievement of sector and enterprise objectives.
For the 2011 – 2013 PSP program, 2013 EPS was measured based on the combined 2013 EPS of both Ingersoll Rand and Allegion to ensure a consistent basis for determining EPS growth. Based on our achievement of an EPS growth rate of 68.1% during the 2011 to 2013 performance period, PSUs under our Performance Share Program (“PSP”) paid out at 199% of target.
To recognize individuals whose contributions were critical to the success of the Spin-off, a special one-time bonus was approved for certain employees, including Messrs. Lamach and Shawley. For additional details related to these awards, refer to Section V, Compensation Program Descriptions and Compensation Decisions.
2013 Compensation Committee Actions
The Compensation Committee took the following actions in 2013:
Reviewed and approved adjustments to the 2013 AIM design to better reward balanced growth and profitability as well as to improve the alignment of payouts with performance. The 2013 AIM program is designed to reward performance for the achievement of pre-defined goals related to the metrics of Revenue, OI and Cash Flow (weighted equally and modified by OI Margin) as opposed to Revenue Growth and OI Margin in prior years (which were incorporated into a matrix modified by Cash Flow performance). The 2013 design provided participants greater clarity as to how performance results impacted their incentive opportunity;
As approved by shareholders, implemented a new Incentive Stock Plan for Ingersoll Rand equity-based awards;
In support of the Spin-off, adopted conversion formulas to adjust executive compensation and benefit programs with an equity-based component;
Reviewed and approved new compensation and benefit programs for Allegion at inception including:
(i)The Allegion Incentive Stock Plan,
(ii)The Allegion Spin-off Protection Plan,
(iii)The Allegion Senior Executive Performance Plan (162m Plan),
(iv)Allegion Stock Ownership Guidelines, and
(v)Compensation packages for Allegion executive officers; and
Reviewed and approved compensation and benefit disclosures in Form 10 filings for Allegion.
Consideration of 2013 Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation
The Compensation Committee regularly reviews the philosophy, objectives and elements of our executive compensation programs in relation to our short and long-term business objectives. In undertaking this review, the Compensation Committee considers the views of shareholders as reflected in their annual advisory vote on our executive compensation proposal. At our 2013 annual general meeting, shareholders approved our executive compensation proposal by an overwhelming majority (over 96%). Based on the Compensation Committee’s review and the support our executive compensation programs received from shareholders, the Compensation Committee maintained the core elements of our executive compensation programs.
II. Compensation Philosophy and Design Principles
The objective of our executive compensation programs is to enable us to attract, retain and focus the talents and energies of executives who are capable of meeting the Company’s current and future goals, most notably the creation of sustainable shareholder value. Our compensation programs and decisions are driven by these objectives. As we operate in an ever-changing environment that is impacted by economic, technological, regulatory and competitive factors, our Compensation Committee considers these and other factors in its process of determining the type of compensation and benefit programs to offer, as well as setting specific performance targets for incentive awards.
The design principles that govern our executive compensation programs are:    
1.    Program competitiveness
Total executive compensation opportunities must serve to attract and retain high performing executives. All of our executive compensation program targets are established using relevant market data to ensure their competitiveness. In aggregate, we structure our executive compensation to provide target Total Direct Compensation (“TDC”) at the 50th percentile of the markets in which we compete for talent. However, each NEO’s target TDC may be above or below the 50th percentile based on his or her experience and proficiency in performing the duties of his or her position.

26



2.    Pay for performance
A substantial percentage of each NEO’s TDC opportunity is contingent on, and variable with, performance. Performance is measured against and contingent on:
(a)
Multiple metrics that measure actual annual Sector (Segment, beginning in 2014) and/or Enterprise financial performance against pre-established objectives (through our AIM program);
(b)
EPS growth and TSR over a three-year period relative to companies in the S&P 500 Industrials Index (through our PSP program);
(c)    Stock price appreciation through stock options, RSUs and PSUs awarded under our LTI program; and    
(d)
Each NEO’s demonstrated ability to achieve Company financial objectives, develop and carry out strategic initiatives, contribute to both the growth and operational excellence of the Company and lead in a way that is consistent with our core competencies: modeling our values, inspiring our people, focusing on our customers, creating long-term value for our shareholders and delivering premier performance.
Actual TDC can exceed the targeted level if performance exceeds the goals and objectives. Conversely, if performance falls short of the goals and objectives, actual TDC can be below the target award level.
3.    Mix of short and long-term incentives
We believe that an appropriate mix between short and long-term incentives is important to encourage our NEOs to engage in strategies and make decisions that balance the need to meet our Annual Operating Plan (“AOP”) objectives while taking into account the long-term interests of the Company and its shareholders. The mix of pay, including short and long-term incentives, is determined by considering the Company’s pay for performance compensation philosophy and strategic objectives in addition to competitive market practice.
4.    Internal parity
Each NEO’s target TDC opportunity is proportionate with the responsibility, scope and complexity of his or her role within the Company. Thus, similar jobs are assigned similar target compensation opportunities.
5.    Shareholder alignment
We have designed our executive compensation programs to align the interests of our NEOs with the interests of our shareholders by rewarding the achievement of Revenue, EPS, TSR, Cash Flow, OI margin and other financial targets, as well as operational excellence and sustained individual performance. The value of the variable compensation components (i.e., AIM plus LTI awards) is directly linked to our financial performance and to the value created for our shareholders. Thus, we believe these incentive compensation programs provide clear alignment between the interests of our shareholders and our NEOs.
6.    Business strategy alignment
Our executive compensation programs are structured to be flexible in recognizing that individuals within the company’s businesses must focus on specific financial measures to meet the short and long-term plans of the business for which they are accountable. This principle, in conjunction with the design principles described above, directly influences compensation levels for leaders. It is not only possible but also desirable for certain leaders to earn substantial awards in years when their business outperforms the Company as a whole. Conversely, if a business fails to meet its performance goals, that business’ leader may earn a lesser award in that year than his or her peers in a business that met or exceeded its goals.
III. Factors Considered in the Determination of Target Total Direct Compensation or TDC
Our Compensation Committee reviews and evaluates the executive compensation levels and practices against those companies with which we compete for executive talent. These reviews are conducted throughout the year using a variety of methods such as:
the direct analysis of the proxy statements of other diversified industrial companies (refer to peer group below),
a review of compensation survey data of other industrial companies of similar size published by independent consulting firms,
a review of customized compensation survey data provided by independent consulting firms, and
feedback received from external constituencies.
The Compensation Committee does not rely on a single source of information when making executive compensation decisions. Many of the companies included in these compensation surveys are also included in the S&P 500 Industrials Index referred to in our 2013 Form 10-K under the caption “Performance Graph.”

27



The Compensation Committee, with the assistance of its independent advisor, develops a peer group that it uses to evaluate executive compensation programs and levels. The peer group is comprised of global diversified companies that have comparable revenue and/or industry fit with our lines of business and which are companies with which we compete for both business and talent. The following peer group was adopted in August 2012 and used for benchmarking with respect to the 2013 performance period:
3M
Eaton Corp
Johnson Controls Inc.
Pentair
Cummins, Inc.
Emerson Electric
Paccar Inc.
Stanley Black & Decker
Danaher Corp
Honeywell International
Parker Hannifin Corp
Textron
Dover
Illinois Tool Works
PPG Industries
Tyco International
As a result of the Spin-off and our reorganization, our Compensation Committee will review the compensation peer group in 2014 to ensure that it continues to be appropriate based on our size (revenue) and the industries in which we compete for both business and executive talent.
In addition, the Compensation Committee annually reviews tally sheets on the NEOs in order to understand fully all elements of current and potential future compensation when making compensation decisions. These tally sheets contain the following items: base salary, current short and long-term incentive award opportunities, and benefits that would be payable under various types of separation from service, such as in the context of a change in control, termination without cause or retirement.
IV. Role of the Compensation Committee, Independent Advisor and Committee Actions
Our Compensation Committee, which is composed solely of independent directors, oversees our compensation plans and policies, administers our equity-based programs and reviews and approves all forms of compensation relating to our executive officers, including the NEOs.
The Compensation Committee exclusively decides which compensation elements and the amounts to be awarded to our CEO. Our CEO does not make any recommendations regarding his own compensation and is not informed of these awards until the decisions have been finalized. Our CEO makes compensation recommendations related to our other NEOs. The Compensation Committee considers these recommendations when approving the compensation elements and amounts to be awarded to our other NEOs.
Our Compensation Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving amendments to our executive compensation and benefit plans. In addition, our Compensation Committee is responsible for reviewing our broad-based employee benefit plans and making recommendations to our Board of Directors for significant amendments to, or termination of, such plans. The Compensation Committee’s duties are described in the Compensation Committee Charter, which is available on our website at www.ingersollrand.com.
Our Compensation Committee has the authority to retain an independent advisor for the purpose of reviewing and providing guidance related to our executive compensation and benefit programs. The Compensation Committee is directly responsible for the compensation and oversight of the independent advisor. For 2013, the Compensation Committee continued to engage Hay Group, Inc. (“Hay Group”) to serve as its independent advisor. Hay Group also provided the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee advice on director compensation matters. The Compensation Committee has determined that the Hay Group is independent and does not have a conflict of interest because (a) Hay Group did not perform any other services for the Company, (b) the fees received by Hay Group for its services for the Compensation and Corporate Governance and Nominating Committees were nominal as a percentage of Hay Group’s total revenues, (c) Hay Group has adopted policies and procedures that are designed to prevent conflicts of interest, (d) neither any member of the Compensation Committee nor any executive officer has a business or personal relationship with Hay Group, and (e) neither Hay Group nor its consultants that work with the Company directly own stock in the Company.
In addition to the actions taken in 2013, which are described in the Executive Summary, our Compensation Committee has adopted a number of changes over the past few years, including:
• Diversified and expanded the metrics associated with our AIM and PSP programs to better align with business strategies and shareholder interests;
Adopted a claw-back/recoupment policy. Our current policy will be revised, if necessary, to comply with the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act when the final regulations are issued;    
Incorporated provisions in the 2007 and 2013 Incentive Stock Plans to replace full payout at target of outstanding PSP awards in the event of a Change in Control of the Company with prorated PSP payout at target based on the point in the performance period when the Change in Control occurs; and    
Closed the Elected Officer Supplemental Program (“EOSP”) to new participants effective April 30, 2011.


28



V. Compensation Program Descriptions and Compensation Decisions
The following table is intended to be a helpful summary of the elements, objectives, risk mitigation factors and other key features of our total direct compensation program. Each of these elements is described in greater detail below
Element 
 

Objective of Element
 including Risk Mitigation Factors 
 
Key Features Relative to NEOs 
Base Salary
 
To provide a sufficient and stable source of cash compensation.

To avoid encouraging excessive risk-taking, it is important that an appropriate level of cash compensation is not variable.
 
Targeted, on average, at the 50th percentile of our peer group.
 
Adjustments are determined by the Compensation Committee based on an evaluation of the NEO’s proficiency in fulfilling his or her responsibilities, as well as performance against key objectives and behaviors.

Only 10% of the CEO’s target total direct compensation and only 24% on average for the other NEOs is comprised of base salary.
Annual Incentive Matrix (“AIM”) Program

 
To serve as an annual cash award based on the achievement of pre-established performance objectives.
 
Structured to take into consideration the unique needs of the various businesses.
 
Amount of compensation earned cannot exceed a maximum payout of 200% of individual target levels and is also subject to a claw-back in the event of a financial restatement.
 
Each NEO has an AIM target expressed as a percentage of base salary. Targets are set based on the compensation levels of similar jobs in comparable companies, as well as on the NEO’s experience and proficiency level in performing the duties of the role.
 
Actual AIM payouts are dependent on business and/or enterprise financial performance and individual performance. The financial metrics used to determine the awards for 2013 were Revenue, OI, and Cash Flow, modified up or down based on OI Margin performance.

17% of the CEO’s target total direct compensation is comprised of AIM and 21%, on average, for the other NEOs.

Performance Share Program (“PSP”)




 
To serve as a long-term incentive based on the achievement of pre-established performance objectives relative to companies in the S&P 500 Industrials Index.
 
To promote long-term strategic planning and discourage an overemphasis on attaining short-term goals.
 
Amount earned cannot exceed a maximum payout of 200% of individual target levels and is also subject to a claw-back in the event of a financial restatement.
 
Earned over a 3-year performance period.
 
The number of PSUs earned is based on our EPS growth (from continuing operations) relative to the companies in the S&P 500 Industrials Index for awards granted through 2011. Beginning in 2012, the number of PSUs earned is based on relative TSR and relative EPS growth compared to companies within the S&P 500 Industrials Index (with equal weight given to each metric).
 
Actual value of the PSUs earned depends on our share price at the time of payment.

36.5% of the CEO’s target total direct compensation is comprised of PSP and 27.5%, on average, for the other NEOs.

Stock Options/Restricted Stock Units

 
Aligns the interests of the NEOs and shareholders.
 
Awards provide a balanced approach between risk and retention.
 
Awards are subject to a claw-back in the event of a financial restatement.

 
Stock options and RSUs are granted annually, with stock options having an exercise price equal to the fair market value of ordinary shares on the date of grant.
 
Both stock options and RSUs typically vest ratably over three years, one third per year.
 
Stock options expire on the 10th anniversary (less one day) of the grant date (unless employment terminates sooner).
 
36.5% of the CEO’s target total direct compensation is comprised of a mix of stock options and RSUs and 27.5%, on average, for the other NEOs.



29



Base Salary
Our Compensation Committee generally targets base salaries for the NEOs around the median for executives in our peer group who have similar roles and responsibilities. However, the Committee will also consider each NEO’s experience, proficiency, performance and potential to impact future business results, as well as behavior against competencies and key enterprise values when making base salary decisions.
The table below reflects the base salary adjustments for the NEOs for the 2013 performance period. When determining base salary adjustments, each NEO is evaluated on the results achieved and the behaviors used to generate these results, as well as on demonstrated leadership and the upholding of Company values. Based on the outcome of the evaluation, each NEO is assigned one of five ratings. The ratings, which range from “meets some” to “substantially exceeds expectations,” each have a percent range that determines the actual merit increase. In addition to merit increases, in cases in which the NEO’s salary is below the competitive market median, a market adjustment may also be applied. In 2013:
Mr. Lamach received a 4.2% combined merit and market adjustment to continue to align his pay with his role and responsibilities as CEO;
Mr. Michel received a merit increase of 3.0%;
Mr. Teirlinck received a 3.4% merit increase in April 2013 and an 8.3% market adjustment in December in conjunction with his promotion to Executive Vice President, Climate;
Mr. Zafari received a 3.5% merit increase in April 2013 and an 11.9% market adjustment in December in conjunction with his promotion to Executive Vice President, Industrial;
Mr. Shawley received a merit increase of 2.9%; and
Mr. Conover received a merit increase of 3.2%.
(dollar amounts annualized)

Name
 
2012
 
2013
M. W. Lamach
 
$
1,200,000
 
 
 
$
1,250,000
 
 
S. K. Carter1
 
$
n/a
 
 
 
$
635,000
 
 
G. S. Michel
 
$
443,000
 
 
 
$
456,500
 
 
D. P. M. Teirlinck
 
$
585,000
 
 
 
$
655,000
 
 
R. G. Zafari
 
$
475,000
 
 
 
$
550,000
 
 
S. R. Shawley
 
$
618,000
 
 
 
$
636,000
 
 
J. Conover
 
$
470,000
 
 
 
$
485,000
 
 
(1)
Ms. Carter was first employed on September 27, 2013.
Annual Incentives
The AIM program is an annual cash incentive program designed to reward NEOs for Revenue growth, increases in OI, the delivery of strong Cash Flow and individual contributions to the Company. The Compensation Committee establishes a target award opportunity for each NEO that is expressed as a percentage of base salary. Individual AIM payouts are calculated as the product of a financial performance score and an individual performance score, both of which are based on achievement relative to pre-established performance objectives adopted by the Compensation Committee.
For 2013, the AIM program was redesigned to balance emphasis on growth and profitability as well as to improve the alignment of payouts with performance. This change replaced the 2012 “matrix” approach which was based on the relationship between Revenue and OI percent modified by Cash Flow performance. The new design utilizes the same core performance metrics of Revenue, OI and Cash Flow, with each metric equally weighted. OI margin remains a focus, acting as a modifier to the funded portion of awards. We believe that the 2013 AIM design provides participants with greater clarity on how they can generate incentive opportunity based on strong performance relative to each metric. The Compensation Committee designed the 2013 AIM program to avoid excessive risk taking by limiting incentive opportunity if performance results are not balanced relative to the other two metrics.
Financial performance: AIM incentive opportunity is tied to established goals for three performance metrics (“Core Financial Metrics”): Revenue, OI, and Cash Flow. Each of these Core Financial Metrics are equally weighted (33.33%) with incentives independently calculated, as a percent of target, for each metric based on performance results relative to pre-established threshold, target, and maximum performance levels. Threshold performance for each metric must be achieved in order for any incentive to be payable for that metric. The financial AIM payout is the sum of the calculated payout percentage for each metric, adjusted by an OI margin percentage multiplier (“Multiplier”), which can range from 85% to 115%.
The Compensation Committee retains the authority to adjust the Company’s reported financial results for the impact of changes in accounting principles, extraordinary items and unusual or non-recurring gains or losses, including significant differences

30



from the assumptions contained in the financial plan upon which the incentive targets were established. Adjustments to reported financial results are intended to better reflect executives’ line of sight and ability to affect performance results, align award payments with decisions which support the AOP, avoid artificial inflation or deflation of awards due to unusual or non-recurring items in the applicable period and emphasize the Company’s preference for long-term and sustainable growth.
 
Pre-Established Financial Targets ($ million)*
Payout
as % of Target**
OI Margin
OI Margin Multiplier**
 
Revenue
OI
Cash Flow
Enterprise
Threshold
$13,680.0
$1,485.0
$990.0
30%
10.9%
85%
Target
$14,400.0
$1,650.0
$1,100.0
100%
11.5%
100%
Maximum
$14,760.0
$1,794.0
$1,200.0
200%
12.2%
115%
Residential Solutions
Threshold
$2,124.0
$139.5
$207.0
30%
6.6%
85%
Target
$2,236.0
$155.0
$230.0
100%
6.9%
100%
Maximum
$2,291.9
$178.3
$264.5
200%
7.8%
115%
Climate Solutions
Threshold
$7,182.0
$759.6
$735.3
30%
10.6%
85%
Target
$7,560.0
$844.0
$817.0
100%
11.2%
100%
Maximum
$7,749.0
$928.4
$899.0
200%
12.0%
115%
Industrial Technologies
Threshold
$2,866.2
$446.4
$446.4
30%
15.6%
85%
Target
$3,017.0
$496.0
$496.0
100%
16.4%
100%
Maximum
$3,092.4
$545.6
$545.6
200%
17.6%
115%
Security Technologies
Threshold
$1,508.6
$292.5
$281.7
30%
19.4%
85%
Target
$1,588.0
$325.0
$313.0
100%
20.5%
100%
Maximum
$1,627.7
$354.0
$341.0
200%
21.7%
115%
* Reflects the financial goals for the Enterprise and sectors to which incentive opportunity for our 2013 named executive officers was tied.
** Results are interpolated between performance levels.
For 2013 AIM purposes, the CEO and the CFOs were measured on the basis of the enterprise financial metrics. The other NEOs were measured based on a combination of enterprise financial objectives (50% weighting) and their respective 2013 sector financial objectives (50% weighting). We believe this weighting focuses sector Presidents on achieving the pre-established objectives for their sector as well as aligning their interests with enterprise goals to help create sustainable shareholder value.
Individual Performance: Individual objectives are established annually and include strategic initiatives with both financial and non-financial metrics. Each NEO is evaluated based upon non-financial metrics including our core competencies. At the end of the fiscal year the CEO evaluates each of the other NEO’s performance against the pre-established individual objectives and submits a recommendation to the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee evaluates the CEO’s performance against his/her pre-established individual objectives. Based on its evaluation of the CEO and the CEO’s recommendation for other NEOs, the Compensation Committee determines the individual performance score for each NEO, which can range from 0% to 150%.
Determination of Payout: The actual AIM payout is determined by multiplying the NEO’s target award by the financial performance score and multiplying that result by the individual performance score. AIM payouts cannot exceed 200% of the target award. If the overall AIM payout score is less than 30%, no award is payable. In that event, the CEO and the Compensation Committee may establish a discretionary pool (equal to 30% of the target payout levels) for top performers and/or other deserving employees in an amount determined to be appropriate based on their performance against objectives.
The tables below show the pre-established financial performance targets for the 2013 AIM program compared to actual performance. The pre-established financial targets and actual financial results are shown for enterprise and the four sectors. Detail on the weighting between enterprise and sector financials is shown below, following the table outlining the actual AIM awards.

31



 
Financial Targets
Adjusted Financial Performance
Payout as a % of Target
Aggregate Payout as
% of Target
OI Margin Multiplier
AIM Financial Payout
Enterprise 
Revenue
$14,400
$14,509
141.5%
130.0%
95.9%
 
OI
$1,650
$1,639
95.2%
124.6%
Cash Flow
$1,100
$1,153
153.2%
 
OI Margin
11.5%
11.3%
N/A
 
Residential Solutions
Revenue
$2,236
$2,264
165.4%
188.5%
115.0%
200.0%
OI
$155
$178
200.0%
Cash Flow
$230
$294
200.0%
OI Margin
6.9%
7.9%
N/A
Climate Solutions
Revenue
$7,560
$7,729
190.6%
179.5%
104.5%
187.5%
OI
$844
$881
147.8%
Cash Flow
$817
$914
200.0%
OI Margin
11.2%
11.4%
N/A
Industrial Technologies 
Revenue
$3,017
$2,939
63.8%
66.7%
95.6%
63.7%
OI
$496
$476
71.2%
Cash Flow
$496
$471
65.0%
OI Margin
16.4%
16.2%
N/A
Security Technologies 
Revenue
$1,588
$1,575
88.5%
136.7%
105.1%
143.7%
OI
$325
$329
121.5%
Cash Flow
$313
$399
200%
OI Margin
20.5%
20.9%
N/A
To ensure that performance under the 2013 AIM was measured on a full year basis consistent with how 2013 performance goals were established, 2013 performance for AIM payout determinations was calculated based on full year 2013 financial results to reflect the organizational structure in place at the time that performance objectives were approved by the Committee in February 2013, prior to the Spin-off. Therefore, for purposes of measuring 2013 performance, full year financial results for the Enterprise include full year financial results of the Security Technologies Sector and the Residential Solutions Security businesses which were spun off. One-time expenses associated with the spin-off were excluded.
In addition, in determining the achievement of the 2013 AIM financial goals for the enterprise, the Compensation Committee (a) adjusted OI downward to reflect only the net after tax benefit excluding the non-controlling interest from the sale of the Fu Hsing facilities in China, (b) adjusted Revenue upward to reflect revenue not recognized for customer orders placed directly with the Taiwan Fu Hsing manufacturing entities following dissolution of the joint venture, (c) adjusted Revenue upward to offset the detrimental impact of a change in the accounting approach for jobs sold through independent offices, and (d) adjusted Revenue, OI and Cash Flow upward to offset the impact of flood damage to facilities in Shanghai, China. These adjustments were made to align 2013 AIM incentive awards and performance for the year taking into consideration the impact of certain events not contemplated when 2013 AIM performance objectives were established. Prior to the Compensation Committee making these adjustments, they were also reviewed with the Audit Committee.
In determining the individual factor for each NEO’s AIM award, the Committee considered pre-established individual performance objectives, including the following:
Mr. Lamach: Leadership of the successful Spin-off; operational excellence measured by a growth in operating margin, deployment of core systems and the improvement of functional excellence; implement a capital allocation strategy to effectively balance shareholder distributions with strategic growth; and, improve leadership effectiveness, succession bench strength and employee engagement.
Ms. Carter: Efficient transition in the Chief Financial Officer role; effective oversight of the 2014 financial planning process; leadership of the financial restructuring of the company; and development of relationships with analysts and investors.
Mr. Michel: Increase customer satisfaction ratings; grow the business; leadership of the successful spin-off of the residential security businesses including cost management of the conversion and retention of key talent; increase

32



operating leverage, and improve employee engagement through a progressive, diverse and inclusive plan and by focusing on manager development and accountability.
Mr. Teirlinck: Deliver organic growth through the implementation of portfolio management and growth programs; develop and deploy a product management excellence program; implement technology improvements and support trading hubs, and improve employee engagement.
Mr. Zafari: Enhance global integrated supply chain footprint and processes to deliver sustainable cash flow and customer satisfaction improvements; deliver organic growth through implementation of portfolio/channel management; develop and deploy product management excellence program with greater emphasis on the innovation of both products and services; pursue acquisition and divestiture strategy to accelerate growth in focused areas; foster margin expansion in Latin America, and deliver greater capability and decision making by focusing on the customer and standard work, delivered at lower cost.
Mr. Shawley: Financial leadership in the successful Spin-off; execution of tax planning strategies and the share repurchase program; improve employee engagement and retain key leadership talent; and lead the function toward a progressive, diverse and inclusive culture.
Mr. Conover: Leadership of the successful spin-off of the security businesses including cost management of the conversion; flow improvements through a focus on innovation revenue and emerging markets; and continued progress on operational excellence path.
The Compensation Committee approved the following AIM awards for all NEOs based on achieving both the 2013 financial and individual objectives:
Name
 
AIM Target
 
AIM Payout Percent for 2013
 
AIM Award for 2013
M. W. Lamach
 
160
%
of
$1,250,000
 
 
132.50%
 
$2,650,000
(1)
S. K. Carter
 
 
 
$175,000
(2)
 
124.60%
 
$218,050
(1)(2)
G. S. Michel
 
80
%
of
$456,500
 
 
162.30%
 
$592,720
(3)
D. P. M. Teirlinck
 
90
%
of
$609,247
 
 
156.03%
 
$855,547
(4)
R. G. Zafari
 
85
%
of
$496,468
 
 
94.16%
 
$397,354
(5)
S. R. Shawley
 
100
%
of
$636,000
 
 
114.02%
 
$725,151
(1)
J. Conover
 
80
%
of
$485,000
 
 
113.55%
 
$440,578
(6)
(1)
Reflects an individual performance score of 106.34% for Mr. Lamach; 100% for Ms. Carter, and 100 % for Mr. Shawley. In addition, Mr. Shawley’s award was prorated to take into consideration his retirement date of November 30, 2013.
(2)
Ms. Carter’s 2013 target AIM was set at $175,000 to reflect her September 27, 2013 start date. In addition to this AIM award, Ms. Carter’s offer letter provides for March 2014 cash payments of $375,000 to offset forfeited 2013 annual incentive from her prior employer and $585,000 to offset the forfeited value of performance shares from her prior employer which were scheduled to be earned and delivered in 2014.
(3)
Mr. Michel’s financial score is 50% weighted on achievement of Residential Solutions metrics and 50% weighted on achievement of enterprise-wide metrics. Mr. Michel’s individual performance score was 100%.
(4) 
Mr. Teirlinck’s financial score is 50% weighted on achievement of Climate Solutions metrics and 50% weighted on achievement of enterprise-wide metrics. Mr. Teirlinck’s individual performance score was 100%. Mr. Teirlinck’s target was prorated to reflect a base salary of $605,000 through November 30, 2013 and a base salary of $655,000 from December 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013.
(5) 
Mr. Zafari’s financial score is 50% weighted on achievement of Industrial Technologies metrics and 50% weighted on achievement of enterprise-wide metrics. Mr. Zafari’s individual performance score was 100%. Mr. Zafari’s target was prorated to reflect a base salary of $491,500 through November 30, 2013 and a base salary of $550,000 from December 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013.
(6) 
Mr. Conover’s financial score is 50% weighted on achievement of Security Technologies metrics and 50% weighted on achievement of enterprise-wide metrics. Mr. Conover’s individual performance score was 100%. In addition, Mr. Conover’s award was prorated to take into consideration his retirement date of November 5, 2013. This AIM amount was paid as part of Mr. Conover’s severance in accordance with the terms of the Major Restructuring Severance Plan.
In addition to AIM awards, special completion recognition bonuses were awarded in December 2013 to recognize certain individuals whose contributions were critical to the successful completion of the Spin-off. The Committee approved the payment of $250,000 to Mr. Lamach and $100,000 to Mr. Shawley based on its evaluation of their contributions with respect to the Spin-off.

33



Long-Term Incentive Program
Our long-term incentive program is comprised of PSUs, stock options and RSUs. It is designed to further align the executives’ interests with the interests of our shareholders. This approach enables us to develop and implement long-term strategies that we believe are in the best interest of shareholders.
Performance Share Program: Our PSP is an equity-based incentive compensation program that provides our NEOs with an opportunity to earn PSUs based on the Company’s performance relative to other companies in the S&P 500 Industrials Index. For PSUs granted prior to 2012, PSUs are earned based on our relative EPS growth (from continuing operations) as compared to the companies within the S&P 500 Industrials Index over a 3-year performance period. For PSUs granted in 2012 and later, PSUs are earned based equally on our relative EPS growth (from continuing operations) and TSR as compared to the companies within the S&P 500 Industrials Index over a 3-year performance period. The actual number of PSUs earned for grants made in 2013 (which can range from 0% to 200% of target) is based on the following thresholds:
Ingersoll Rand’s Performance Relative to the Companies within the S&P 500 Industrials Index
 
% of Target PSUs Earned*
< 25th Percentile
 
0%
25th Percentile
 
25%
50th Percentile
 
100%
 ≥ 75th Percentile
 
200%
* Results are interpolated between percentiles achieved.
The NEOs’ PSP target awards are set by assessing competitive market values for executives in our peer group with similar roles and responsibilities and are expressed as a dollar amount. The dollar target is converted to share equivalent PSUs based on the fair market value of the Company’s shares on the date that the award is granted. Our Compensation Committee retains the authority and discretion to make downward adjustments to the calculated PSP award payouts, either as a percentage or a dollar amount, or not to grant any award payout regardless of actual performance against pre-established goals. EPS is calculated in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”), subject to adjustments for extraordinary, unusual or infrequent items; the impact of any change in accounting principles; goodwill and other intangible asset impairments; and gains or charges associated with discontinued operations or with obtaining or losing control of a business. As a result, expense for outstanding PSP awards is recorded using fixed accounting.
Dividend equivalents are accrued on outstanding PSU awards at the same time and at the same rate as dividends are paid to shareholders, but are only paid on the number of PSUs actually earned and vested. Dividend equivalents are payable in cash at the time the associated PSUs are distributed unless the NEO elected to defer the PSUs into our executive deferred compensation plan, in which case the dividends are also deferred.
Stock Options/Restricted Stock Units: We grant our NEOs an equal mix of stock options and RSUs. Our Compensation Committee believes that this mix provides an effective balance between risk and retention for our NEOs and conserves share usage under our incentive stock plan. Stock options are considered “at risk” since there is no value unless the stock price appreciates during the term of the option period. RSUs, on the other hand, provide strong retentive value because they have value even if our stock price does not grow during the restricted period. Our Compensation Committee annually reviews our equity mix and grant policies to ensure they are aligned with our pay for performance philosophy, our executive compensation objectives and the interests of our shareholders.
Stock option and RSU targets are expressed in dollars. The dollar target is converted to a number of shares based on the fair market value of the Company’s shares on the date that the award is granted. In order to determine the target stock option and RSU awards for our NEOs, the Compensation Committee considers factors such as market competitiveness with our peer group, demonstrated potential to drive future business results and sustained individual performance.
Both stock options and RSUs generally vest ratably, one third per year, over a three year period following the grant. Dividend equivalents are accrued on outstanding RSU awards at the same time and at the same rate as dividends are paid to shareholders. Dividend equivalents on RSUs are only payable if the underlying RSU award vests. At the time of vesting, one ordinary share is issued for each RSU and any accrued dividend equivalents are paid in cash.
2013 Equity Awards
In 2013, the Compensation Committee approved the PSU, stock option and RSU awards below based on its evaluation of market competitiveness and each NEO’s demonstrated potential to drive future business results and sustained individual performance. The values in the table reflect equity-based award values approved by the Compensation Committee. These values differ from the corresponding values reported in the Summary Compensation Table and the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table due to different methodologies used in assigning the economic value of equity-based awards required for accounting and proxy statement reporting purposes. The Compensation Committee makes its determination based on values as of January 1 while the accounting and proxy

34



statement values are determined as of the grant date. The difference is most significant for the PSU awards which are earned, in part, based on TSR relative to the S&P 500 Industrials Index over a three-year performance period. The accounting and proxy report values are greater because the Company’s stock price increased by a greater percentage relative to other companies in the S&P 500 Industrials Index for the period from January 1, 2013 through February 22, 2013, the grant date.
Name
 
Target 2013-15
PSU award
($)(a)
 
Stock
Option
Award 
($)
 
 
RSU
Award 
($)
 
M. W. Lamach
 
 
4,375,000
 
 
 
2,187,500
 
 
 
2,187,500
 
 
S. K. Carter (a)
 
 
0
 
 
 
0
 
 
 
0
 
 
G. S. Michel
 
 
400,000
 
 
 
200,000
 
 
 
200,000
 
 
D. P. M. Teirlinck
 
 
725,000
 
 
 
362,500
 
 
 
362,500
 
 
R. G. Zafari
 
 
550,000
 
 
 
275,000
 
 
 
275,000
 
 
S. R. Shawley (b)
 
 
1,000,000
 
 
 
500,000
 
 
 
500,000
 
 
J. W. Conover IV (b)
 
 
400,000
 
 
 
200,000
 
 
 
200,000
 
 
(a)
Ms. Carter joined Ingersoll Rand on September 27, 2013 and did not receive an annual equity award. In conjunction with her offer, on October 1, 2013, she was granted equity awards to partially offset the value of forfeited equity awards from her prior employer. These replacement awards include stock options with a value of $65,000, RSUs with a value of $960,000 and prorated PSU grants with a grant date target value of $410,000 for the 2012-2014 performance period and a grant date target value of $725,000 for the 2013-2015 performance period.
(b)
With their retirements in 2013, both Messrs. Shawley and Conover will be eligible to receive a pro-rated portion of the PSU awards based on time worked prior to their retirement date.
In addition to the above equity awards, Messrs. Michel, Teirlinck and Zafari were granted special RSU awards on December 6, 2013 in connection with the reorganization of the company or their respective promotions. The dollar values of the awards were $1,000,000 for Mr. Michel, $750,000 for Mr. Teirlinck and $750,000 for Mr. Zafari.
Equity Conversion for the Spin-off
In conjunction with the Spin-off, all outstanding equity awards were adjusted in the manner described in the narrative disclosure preceding the “Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2013” to preserve the economic value of the awards immediately following the Spin-off.
Performance Share Units Payout
As discussed above, PSUs for the 2011 - 2013 performance period were earned based on the Company’s EPS growth (from continuing operations) performance relative to all of the companies in the S&P 500 Industrials Index. The Company achieved an adjusted EPS from continuing operations of $3.63 in 2013 and achieved an adjusted EPS from continuing operations of $2.16 in 2010. This represents an EPS growth rate of 68.1%, which ranks at approximately the 75th percentile of the companies in the S&P 500 Industrials Index. As a result of this level of performance, the payout was 199% of target. For purposes of measuring EPS growth, 2013 EPS was measured based on the combined 2013 EPS of both Ingersoll Rand and Allegion to ensure a consistent basis for determining EPS growth. In addition, consistent with the terms of the award agreements, one-time costs associated with the Spin-off as well as debt restructuring costs incurred in consideration of the Spin-off were excluded from the 2013 EPS calculations in determining the PSU payout level for the 2011-2013 performance period.


35



2014 Compensation Decisions
The Compensation Committee annually reviews the total direct compensation for each NEO and, using its discretion based on its compensation philosophy and design principles, may revise such compensation. For 2014, the Compensation Committee has set the base salary and target AIM award for each active NEO as follows:
Name
 
Base Salary
($)(a)
 
Target AIM Award  
(%)
M. W. Lamach
 

$1,250,000

 
 
 
160
%
 
S. K. Carter
 

$654,000

 
 
 
100
%
 
G. S. Michel
 

$475,000

 
 
 
80
%
 
D. P. M. Teirlinck
 

$655,000

 
 
 
90
%
 
R. G. Zafari
 

$550,000

 
 
 
85
%
 
(a)
Messrs. Shawley and Conover retired prior to 2014, therefore there are no salary adjustments shown for them. Messrs. Teirlinck and Zafari received a market adjustment as well as a merit increase in December 2013 to take into consideration their promotions to Executive Vice Presidents under the new reorganized structure.
The Compensation Committee established the following target PSU awards for the 2014 - 2016 performance period to each active NEO:
Name
 
Target 2014-16
PSU award
($)
 
Target 2014-16
PSU shares  
(#)
M. W. Lamach
 
4,625,000
 
 
 
77,309
 
S. K. Carter
 
950,000
 
 
 
15,880
 
G. S. Michel
 
400,000
 
 
 
6,687
 
D. P. M. Teirlinck
 
825,000
 
 
 
13,791
 
R. G. Zafari
 
600,000
 
 
 
10,030
 
Messrs. Shawley and Conover retired prior to 2014, and therefore did not receive a PSU award.
The Compensation Committee granted the following stock option and RSU awards in 2014 to each active NEO:
 
 
Stock Option Awards
 
RSU Award
Name
 
Stock Option Value
($)
 
Shares Underlying Stock Option
(#)
 
RSU
Award Value
($)
 
RSU
Shares
(#)
M. W. Lamach
 
2,312,500
 
 
 
146,733
 
 
 
2,312,500
 
 
 
38,655
 
 
S. K. Carter
 
475,000
 
 
 
30,140
 
 
 
475,000
 
 
 
7,940
 
 
G. S. Michel
 
200,000
 
 
 
12,691
 
 
 
200,000
 
 
 
3,344
 
 
D. P. M. Teirlinck
 
412,500
 
 
 
26,174
 
 
 
412,500
 
 
 
6,896
 
 
R. G. Zafari
 
300,000
 
 
 
19,036
 
 
 
300,000
 
 
 
5,015
 
 
Messrs. Shawley and Conover retired prior to 2014 and therefore did not receive an option or RSU award.
The number of stock options was determined based on the Black-Scholes ratio on December 31, 2013 and the fair market value of our ordinary shares on the date of the grant. The number of RSUs was determined using the fair market value of our ordinary shares on the date of grant.
VI. Other Compensation and Tax Matters
Retirement Programs and Other Benefits
We maintain qualified and nonqualified defined benefit pension plans for our employees, including the NEOs, to provide for fixed benefits upon retirement based on the individual’s age and number of years of service. Refer to the Pension Benefits table for additional details on these programs.
We offer a qualified, defined contribution (401(k)) plan called the Ingersoll-Rand Company Employee Savings Plan (the “ESP”) to our salaried and hourly U.S. workforce, including the NEOs. The ESP is a plan that provides a dollar-for-dollar Company match on the first six percent of the employee’s eligible contributions to the ESP. The ESP has a number of investment options and is an important component of our retirement program.

36



We also have a nonqualified, defined contribution plan. The Ingersoll-Rand Company Supplemental Employee Savings Plan (the “Supplemental ESP”) is an unfunded plan that makes up matching contributions that cannot be made to the ESP due to Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or plan limitations. The Supplemental ESP is deemed to be invested in the funds selected by the NEOs, which are the same funds available in the ESP except for a self-directed brokerage account, which is not available in the Supplemental ESP.
In June 2012, our Board of Directors approved significant changes to our broad-based, qualified retirement programs with the intent to move from a combined defined benefit/defined contribution approach to a fully defined contribution plan approach over time. Employees active prior to July 1, 2012 were given a choice between continuing to participate in the defined benefit plan until December 31, 2022 or moving to an enhanced version of the ESP effective January 1, 2013. Employees hired on or after July 1, 2012 were automatically covered under the enhanced version of the ESP. Under the enhanced version of the ESP, employees will receive a basic employer contribution equal to two percent of eligible compensation in addition to the Company’s matching contribution while ceasing to accrue benefits under the defined benefit plan. Effective as of December 31, 2022, accruals in the defined benefit plan will cease for all employees. The Compensation Committee approved corresponding changes to the nonqualified defined benefit and contribution pension plans. Additional details on the changes can be found following the Pension Benefits table.
Our Ingersoll Rand Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the