Survey Results 2012TrendsandDevelopmentsin ExecutiveCompensation April 2012 To protect the confidential and proprietary information included in this material, it may not be disclosed or provided to any third parties without the approval of Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC. ExecutiveSummary Over the past twelve months, many Companies made impactful decisions with respect to their executive compensation programs for 2012. These survey results summarize these decisions, which are based on responses received as of March 31, 2012 from approximately 150 major companies. Highlights of Meridian’s 2012 Trends and Developments in Executive Compensation survey include: SayonPay ■ Ninety-one percent (91%) of responding companies expect to receive shareholder support above the critical 70% level in 2012. ■ Eighty-one percent (81%) of companies made an effort to understand or prepare for ISS’s pay for performance tests prior to the report being published; the majority (61%) had an outside compensation consultant replicate ISS’s pay for performance tests. 2012MeritIncreaseBudgets ■ Salary increase budgets for executives were slightly higher in 2012 than 2011 as the global economy improved with the most common response being between 3.0% and 3.5% (32%). ■ Twenty percent (20%) of responding companies implemented a budget increase above 3.5% in 2012 versus only 13% in 2011. AnnualIncentives ■ Two-thirds of companies reported paying out bonuses at or above target in 2012 (based on improved 2011 financial performance). ■ One out of four companies changed at least one of their corporate financial performance metrics. ■ 2012 earnings goals are generally higher than 2011 goals; with 44% setting earnings goals more than 5% higher than 2011 goals. Long‐TermIncentives(LTIs) ■ Forty-two percent (42%) of participants reported increasing targeted LTI values for executives in 2012 while nearly 50% kept the targeted values the same as 2011. ■ Companies continue to shift to performance-based awards with 52% of the total LTI value for senior executives delivered through performance share/unit awards in 2012, on average, up from 47% in 2011. The average value of LTI delivered through stock options decreased from 26% to 23% while companies continue to award approximately 25% of total LTI in time-based restricted stock or RSUs. Below the executive level we are seeing a shift to just one vehicle, especially RSUs. ■ Of companies using one or more performance plans for executives in 2012, performance shares are by far the most common vehicle (73%), followed by performance units (22%), and performance-contingent restricted stock (14%). ■ Seventy-seven percent (77%) of performance plans utilize a 3-year performance period, while 22% of performance plans evaluate performance over a period of 1 or 2 years. ■ The use of Total Shareholder Return (TSR) in long-term performance plans continues to increase. Fifty percent (50%) of the companies surveyed use TSR in one or more of their long-term performance awards, up from 44% in 2011. PAGE 1 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 Contents Background Information 3 Say on Pay 5 Merit Increase Budgets 7 Annual Incentives 9 Long-Term Incentives 16 Perquisites 23 Appendix: Participating Companies 25 PAGE 2 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 BackgroundInformation PAGE 3 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 BackgroundInformation ParticipatingOrganizations The Trends and Developments in Executive Compensation survey includes responses from 148 companies. These organizations are listed, by primary GICS sector, in the Appendix. Financial highlights for the participating organizations are presented in the table below. FYERevenues (Millions) MarketValue (Millions) CurrentEnterpriseValue (Millions) Numberof Employees 25th Percentile $1,339 $1,157 $1,655 3,150 Median $3,159 $3,986 $4,908 7,550 75th Percentile $8,284 $9,121 $12,029 21,018 Source: Standard and Poors Compustat Database Trailing four-quarter revenues were used for companies who have not reported fiscal year-end 2011 figures. Market value and enterprise value are effective as of December 31, 2011. 2012 Participants by Industry Sector 5% 1% 7% 18% Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples 8% Energy Financials 8% Health Care Industrials Information Technology Materials 24% 17% Telecommunication Services Utilities 2% 9% 3‐YearPerformanceSummaryofParticipants Operating Margin ROIC EPSGrowth Annualized TSR 25th Percentile 6.3% 5.0% -8.8% 13.3% Median 10.6% 8.8% 6.1% 24.5% 75th Percentile 17.6% 13.3% 16.1% 36.0% PAGE 4 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 SayonPay PAGE 5 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 SayonPay ExpectedLevelofSupportforSayonPay Fifty-nine percent (59%) of respondents expect to receive above 90% shareholder support for Say on Pay at their 2012 annual shareholder meeting. Further, 92% expect greater than 70% support, meaning that those companies expect to be outside of ISS’s designated cautionary “yellow card” zone. Say on Pay—2012 Expected Annual Shareholder Support 70% 60% 59% 50% 40% 32% 30% 20% 7% 10% 2% 0% Above 90% 71%–90% 50%–70% Below 50% In 2012, the majority of respondents (61%) asked an outside compensation consultant to replicate ISS’s Pay for Performance tests in order to prepare for ISS’s evaluation. Twenty-two percent (22%) of responding companies replicated such testing internally, 19% asked ISS to provide preliminary quantitative test results, 19% asked a proxy solicitor to assist in a shareholder outreach campaign and 19% did nothing specific to predict ISS’s Pay for Performance results. 2012 ISS Pay for Performance Approach Replicating ISS’s pay for performance tests internally 22% Having an outside compensation consultant replicate ISS’s pay for performance tests 61% Paying ISS's fee to have them provide preliminary quantitative test results 19% Asking proxy solicitor to help with major shareholder outreach 19% No specific work done to predict ISS's recommendation 19% 0% PAGE 6 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2012MeritIncreaseBudgets PAGE 7 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 2012MeritIncreaseBudgets MeritBudgetIncreaseforExecutives Most companies have increased or are increasing their 2012 merit budget for executives, with the most common response being between 3.0% and 3.5% (32%). Furthermore, in 2012, approximately 20% of responding companies have implemented or will implement a budget increase over 3.5%. In 2011, only 13% of companies implemented a budget increase over 3.5%. Thus, there appears to be a moderate rise in merit budgets for executives in 2012. MeritBudgetIncreaseforSalariedNon‐Exempt Most companies also increased or are increasing their 2012 merit budget for salaried employees. Furthermore, in 2012, 20% of responding companies have implemented or will implement a budget increase for this group over 3.5%. 2012MeritBudgetIncreaseRange Prevalence Executives Prevalence SalariedNon‐Exempt 0% (no merit increase for 2012) 6% 2% < 2.0% 1% 3% 2.0% - 2.99% 23% 30% 3.0% - 3.49% 32% 42% 3.5% - 3.99% 10% 9% 4.0% - 4.49% 4% 3% 4.5% - 5% 5% 7% > 5.0% 2% 1% No Fixed Budget for 2012 17% 3% IncreaseRange PAGE 8 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 AnnualBonus PAGE 9 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 AnnualBonus 2012AnnualIncentivePayoutsfor2011Performance Sixty-seven percent (67%) of responding companies paid bonuses at or above target in 2012, representing a slight decrease from 2011 when 72% of respondents reported paying bonuses at or above target. While financial performance improved in 2011 for many companies, performance goals were set higher for 2011 than 2010. The slight decrease also may be linked to a stabilizing market and, thus, more accurate targetsetting in 2011 than in 2010. It is also noteworthy that only 11% of companies paid less than 50% of target for 2011 performance. 2012 Payouts as a Percentage of Target 25% 20% 18% 15% 15% 12% 13% 9% 10% 6% 12% 9% 5% 5% 1% 1% 0% UseofDiscretioninAnnualIncentivePlanPayouts A clear majority of responding organizations (72%) reported not using discretion to adjust the 2011 results for extraordinary, unusual or unplanned events. Of those respondents making adjustments, the adjustments typically increased the results. IRCSection162(m)BonusPool Forty-seven percent (47%) of companies utilize an IRC Section 162(m) bonus pool, to ensure tax deductibility. Of those companies that utilize an IRC Section 162(m) bonus pool the most commonly-used performance metrics are Operating Income/EBITDA (51%) and Net Income (26%). PAGE 10 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 2012AnnualIncentivePerformanceMetrics A clear majority of responding companies (80%) continue to utilize two or more performance metrics. However, the percentage of respondents utilizing a single performance metric has increased from 14% in 2011 to 20% in 2012. Thus, there appears to be a modest trend toward streamlining performance plans for the senior-most executives. Number of Performance Metrics Used 1 performance metric 20% 2 performance metrics 30% 3 performance metrics 19% > 3 performance metrics 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Of the 148 respondents, 35% indicated that no qualitative metrics are used when determining annual incentive payouts for executives. The remaining 65% of companies utilize some form of qualitative performance measure, in addition to quantitative financial metrics, when evaluating annual incentive payouts. The pie chart below illustrates prevalence by qualitative metric used. Prevalence of Qualitative Metrics 25% Individual Only 35% Corporate/Division Only Both 16% Do Not Use Qualitative Metrics 24% PAGE 11 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 2012FinancialPerformanceMetricsChanges Nearly one-quarter of the respondents (23%) changed at least one of their financial performance metrics in 2012. Of those that made changes, the companies typically shifted from one earnings metric to another. CorporatePerformanceMetrics Annual Incentive Performance Metrics 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 46% 18% 18% Net Income 30% 32% EPS 10% Operating Income Margin (EBIT/EBITDA margin) 10% 5% Return on Invested Capital Return Measures 5% 5% Return on Equity 5% 30% Sales/Revenues Free Cash Flow Margin Economic Value Added Total Shareholder Return 2011 32% 2012 17% Free Cash Flow Cash Flow Measures 60% 44% Operating Income (EBIT/EBITDA) Profit Measures 50% 19% 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% 2% 14% 14% Individual Qualitative Goals Individual Discretionary Factor Corporate/Division Discretionary Goals Industry Specific Financial Measure Other 10% 9% 16% 14% 13% 14% 24% 25% As illustrated above, profit measures were clearly the most commonly utilized metrics to evaluate annual performance. The most prevalent performance metric for 2012 (46%) was Operating Income (including EBIT and EBITDA). There also were modest increases in 2012 for the use of sales/revenue-related measures, EPS and free cash flow. The vast majority of responding organizations (92%) do not utilize relative performance goals (goals that compare against a peer group or index) for their annual incentive plan. PAGE 12 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 When asked to quantify how 2012 earnings-related goals relate to the previous year’s goals, 68% of responding companies reported that their primary earnings-related goal for 2012 is at or above that of 2011. PrimaryEarnings‐RelatedGoalComparedto2011Goals Lower than 2011 goal 16% Same as 2011 goal 16% Higher than 2011 goal by 5% or less 24% Higher than 2011 goal by more than 5% 44% Eleven percent (11%) of respondents set their 2012 target goal below 2011 actual results. However, the decision to do so may be based on unique company circumstances. PrimaryEarnings‐RelatedGoalComparedto2011Results Threshold goal is below last year's actual results 19% Target goal is below last year's actual results 11% Maximum goal is below last year's actual results 2% All goals are at or above last year's actual results 67% PlanDesign The great majority of respondents (69%) provide a maximum opportunity of 200% of target under their annual incentive plan. 2012 Maximum Payout Compared to Target 6% 1% 7% 5% 9% 3% 100% of target 150% of target 175% of target 200% of target 250% of target Uncapped Other 69% PAGE 13 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 Sixty percent (60%) of responding companies set the minimum payout for the annual incentive plan below 50% of target. Nearly all respondents (95%) set the minimum payout opportunity for threshold performance below 75% of target. 2012 Minimum Payout Opportunity as a Percent of Target 5% 38% 35% Less than 25% of target 25% - 49% of target 50% - 74% of target 75% - 100% of target 22% PrimaryEarningsMeasures FinancialPerformanceRequiredtoEarnThresholdPayout An oft-cited threshold goal level is 80% of target for an annual incentive. However, 41% of the respondents set threshold performance at less than 80% of target for their primary earnings-related annual incentive performance measure. Furthermore, one-quarter of the respondents set the threshold performance below 60% of target, yielding a flat performance curve. 2011 2012 Under 60% 24% 25% 60% - 69% 4% 4% 70% - 79% 16% 12% 80% - 84% 20% 22% 85% - 89% 13% 10% 90% - 94% 15% 19% 95% - 99% 9% 8% PAGE 14 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 FinancialPerformanceRequiredtoEarnMaximumPayout An oft-cited maximum goal level is 120% of target for an annual incentive. However, 48% of the respondents set threshold performance at more than 120% of target for their primary earnings-related annual incentive performance measure. Of such companies, 70% set their threshold goals below 80% of target, suggesting many payout curves are not set on a linear basis. Furthermore, only 44% of respondents indicated a maximum performance goal over 120% of target in 2011, indicating a slight trend toward increasing the annual incentive plan maximums. 2011 2012 100% - 104% 8% 6% 105% - 109% 10% 9% 110% - 114% 13% 12% 115% - 120% 25% 24% Above 120% 44% 48% PAGE 15 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 Long‐TermIncentives PAGE 16 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 Long‐TermIncentives PlanDesignChangesfor2011 Companies continue to shift towards using a fixed targeted dollar value when determining long-term incentive (LTI) award sizes. Approximately 92% of responding companies reported using a fixed value in 2012, up significantly from 77% last year. In addition, many organizations are also looking at realized compensation as part of their annual review process. About the Same as 2011 42% Fixed Number of Shares Combined Approach 7% 51% 1% 6% Fixed Value Targeted Value is Lower than 2011 Targeted Value is Greater than 2011 92% Last year’s survey results were indicative of a modest rebound year in terms of grant sizes with 52% of respondents reporting higher targeted LTI values. This year’s survey results suggest that LTI award size increases were somewhat less common for 2012 as only 42% increased targeted LTI values and 51% kept targeted values roughly the same. For those that increased targeted LTI values, the typical increase was approximately 10%–15%. MetricsforDeterminingLong‐TermIncentiveGrants When determining LTI grants for senior-most executives, approximately 75% consider market data as a primary factor; 23% consider it a secondary factor. Of those that consider market data a secondary factor, the most common primary factor listed was internal equity (44%). Just over one-third of respondents said they don’t specifically consider the prior year’s dollar grant size when determining LTI grants. PrimaryFactor AdditionalFactor NotaFactor Competitive Market Data 75% 23% 2% Internal Equity (i.e., grouping by level) 31% 64% 5% Individual Performance 22% 58% 20% Prior year grant size in number of shares 1% 22% 77% Prior year grant size in dollars 10% 56% 34% PAGE 17 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 Companies are continuing to increase the number of LTI vehicles regularly granted to their senior-most executives; however, three vehicles appears to be the ceiling. Eighty-two percent (82%) of respondents are using 2 or more LTI vehicles in 2012, up from 80% in 2011. Number of LTI Vehicles Used 60% 52%50% 50% 40% 31% 28% 30% 2011 2012 19% 16% 20% 10% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% No LTI 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles >3 vehicles Performance-based vehicles represent the largest portion of LTI granted to senior-most executives on a dollar-weighted basis. On average, 52% of the total LTI value for senior executives is delivered through performance share/unit/cash awards, up from 47% last year. The average portions delivered in stock options/SARs or time-based restricted stock both decreased slightly from last year. 2012 Average LTI Mix 25% 2011 Average LTI Mix Stock Options/SARS 23% 12% 27% Performance-Based Stock Awards Performance-Based Cash Awards Performance-Based Cash Awards 12% 35% Stock Options/SARS Performance-Based Stock Awards Time-Vested Restricted Stock/RSUs 40% 26% PAGE 18 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 Time-Vested Restricted Stock/RSUs Performance‐BasedFullValueAwardDetails Performance shares are the most common type of performance plan (73%), with performance units/cash (23%) and performance-based restricted stock (14%) a distant second and third. Performance-Based Grant Award Type Performance Shares 73% Performance Units 22% Performance-based Restricted Stock/Units 14% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Note: The grant types are defined as: Performance Shares—a performance-based award with the same value as a share of company stock that provides for a potential range of payouts; Performance Units—a performance-based award that assigns a notional value to each unit that is not related to the value of a share of company common stock and provides for a potential range of payouts; Performance-Based Restricted Stock/Units—a performance-contingent equity award with no upside in the number of shares that can be earned. Time‐BasedFullValueAwardDetails While time-based full value awards continue to comprise approximately 25% of total LTI values for executives, many companies are switching to RSUs. Thirteen percent (13%) of 2012 time-based full value awards were granted in RSUs paid in cash, up from just 4% in 2011. The prevalence of companies utilizing restricted shares decreased from 36% in 2011 to 32% in 2012. Also, of those companies awarding timebased RSUs, 57% pay dividend equivalents. Full Value Award Type 13% Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) paid in stock Restricted Shares 32% PAGE 19 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 55% Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) paid in cash Long‐TermPlanPerformanceAwardsEligibility Most companies (78%) allow performance plan participation below the Section 16 Executive group. Only 5% of respondents limit performance plan eligibility to the Named Executive Officers (NEOs). PercentEligible CEO Only 0% Named Executive Officers Only 5% Section 16 Executives Officers Only 17% Management Group 53% All Long-Term Incentive Eligible Employees (Broader than management group) 24% Long‐TermPerformancePeriodLength The great majority of long-term performance plans use a 3-year performance period (77%). About 22% of performance plans use performance periods less than 3 years; only 4% use longer periods. Only 22% of performance plans have an additional vesting restriction on earned shares once the performance cycle is completed. Of such additional vesting restrictions, 70% are 2 years or less; 30% have additional vesting periods of 3 to 5 years. Performance Period Prevalence 1 year 15% 2 years 7% 3 years 77% 4 years 4% Note: Does not sum to 100% because some companies have multiple performance awards PAGE 20 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 Performance Measures for LTIPs 0% 10% 20% Net Income 23% 25% 7% 7% 13% 15% Return on Invested Capital Return on Assets 5% 6% Return on Equity 5% 5% 6% 2% 2% 2% 2% 44% Total Shareholder Return Industry Specific Financial Measure Other 2012 10% 12% Free Cash Flow Economic Value Added 2011 4% Sales Free Cash Flow Margin 60% 22% Operating Income Margin (EBIT/EBITDA margin) Cash Flow Measures 50% 6% 4% EPS Return Measures 40% 21% Operating Income (EBIT/EBITDA) Profit Measures 30% 50% 5% 5% 10% 10% Total Shareholder Return (TSR), which is used in one-half of performance plans, has increased to nearly the prevalence of all profit metrics combined. The survey results also indicate slight increases in the use of sales/revenues, operating income, and return on invested capital (ROIC), while net income and return on equity (ROE) are slightly less prevalent in 2012. Nearly half of performance plans (49%) use a relative performance metric in 2012, up from approximately 40% in 2011. For those companies, relative performance metrics are weighted 72% on average, versus a 28% weighting for absolute performance metrics. Also, of such plans, approximately 85% use TSR performance relative to a peer group or index. PAGE 21 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 Three-fourths of performance plans have a maximum payout opportunity equal to 200% of target; only about 8% of companies have a maximum payout above 200% or uncapped. The most common payout at threshold performance is 50% to 74% of target, while only 6% of plans set threshold payouts at 75% or more of target. Maximum Payout Opportunity As a Percent of Target 5% 3%2% 2% Minimum Non-Zero Payout Opportunity as a Percent of Target 14% 6% 150% of target 25% 200% of target 250% of target 1% - 24% of Target 25% - 49% of Target 300% of target Uncapped 50% - 74% of Target 48% Other 22% 75% 75% - 100% of Target TreatmentofLTIAwardsUponNormalRetirement Upon normal retirement, it is somewhat common (45%) to allow continued vesting on performance awards until the end of the performance cycle; however, few companies allow for accelerated vesting of performance awards. Accelerated Prorated (Paidat Retirement) Prorated (PaidatEndof Vestingor Performance Cycle) Forfeited Stock Options/SARs 49% 5% 20% 26% Performance Awards (including performance-contingent Restricted Stock/RSUs) 14% 16% 45% 25% Performance Cash 6% 12% 45% 37% Time-vested Restricted Stock/RSUs 39% 23% 7% 31% PAGE 22 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 PerquisitesandOtherBenefits PAGE 23 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 PerquisitesandOtherBenefits According to the survey results, personal use of the company plane continues as a minority practice for new NEOs, yet one out of three companies offer this perquisite to their CEO. Annual physicals and financial/tax planning assistance remain as the most common perquisites offered to new NEOs. While most companies no longer offer excise tax gross-ups to new NEOs, one-quarter continue to provide this perquisite to their CEO and/or at least one legacy NEO. Perquisite CEO AtLeastOne LegacyNEOs NewNEOs Company plane for personal use 34% 15% 9% Excise tax gross-ups 26% 27% 4% Company car/lease/allowance 28% 25% 23% Flexible perquisite allowance 9% 9% 8% Financial/Tax planning 56% 53% 47% Club memberships 23% 15% 15% Annual physical 53% 48% 43% Matching Charitable Gifts 31% 29% 27% Home Security 11% 6% 5% Please email Patrick Powers (ppowers@meridiancp.com) or Jennifer Turner (jturner@meridiancp.com) or call 847-235-3600 with any questions or comments. PAGE 24 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 Appendix:ParticipatingCompanies PAGE 25 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 Appendix:ParticipatingCompanies ConsumerDiscretionary Energy American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc Belo Corp. BorgWarner Inc. Brinker Brown Shoe Company Build-A-Bear Workshop Chrysler Group LLC Darden Einstein Noah Restaurant Group Gannett Co Inc. Genuine Parts Company Harley-Davidson Harte-Hanks Interpublic Group of Cos Lear Corporation Limited Brands Inc McDonald's Corporation Polaris Industries Inc. Service Corporation International Scripps Networks Interactive Sears Canada Inc. Signet Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. Tower International Vera Bradley Yum! Brands Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Approach Resources Inc. Arch Coal Inc. Buckeye Partners Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation Cal Dive International Inc. Cobalt International Energy Crosstex Energy Services, LP Devon Energy Corporation Encana Corporation Endeavour International EOG Resources, Inc. FMC Technologies, Inc. Helix Energy Solutions Kosmos Energy, LLC Legend Natural Gas Linn Energy Marathon Oil Corporation North American Energy Partners Inc. Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. QEP Resources, Inc. SemGroup Corporation Tidewater Inc. Williams Cos WPX Energy ConsumerStaples Beam Inc. Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. Corn Products Energizer Holdings, Inc. Flowers Foods, Inc. Kraft Foods Inc. Orchids Paper Products Company The Procter & Gamble Company Reynolds American Inc. Spartan Stores Inc. Pantry Inc. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. Financials Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina Comerica Bank Discover Financial Services Freddie Mac Glimcher Realty Trust Hanover Insurance Group MetLife, Inc. Moody's Corporation Radian Group Ramco Gershenson Properties Trust The PNC Financial Services Group XL Group PAGE 26 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 HealthCare InformationTechnology Mylan Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Perrigo Company Akamai Technologies Inc. Alliance Data Systems Amphenol Corp Applied Materials Avnet Broadridge Financial Solutions Cardtronics Dell, Inc. Global Payments Hewlett-Packard Company Paychex Viasystems Group, Inc Industrials AMR Corp. Andersen Corporation Arkansas Best Corporation Avis Budget Group, Inc. Barnes Group Inc BNSF Railway Company Caterpillar Inc. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. CSX Corporation The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Eaton Corporation Equifax Inc. Finning International Inc. Fortune Brands Home & Security Franklin Electric Co Inc. Gardner Denver, Inc. Hendrickson Hydrogenics Corporation Illinois Tool Works JB Hunt Transport Services, Inc JBT Corporation Johanson Group KBR, Inc. Lockheed Martin Meritor, Inc. Mueller Water Products, Inc. PACCAR Inc Robbins & Myers Inc. Schneider National, Inc. The Toro Company TransUnion LLC Trinity Industries, Inc. United Stationers United Technologies W.W Grainger Wabash National PAGE 27 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC APRIL 2012 Materials Celanese Centerra Gold Inc. Chemtrade Domtar Inc. FMC Corporation Inmet Mining Milliken & Co The Valspar Corporation TelecommunicationServices Vonage Holdings Corporation Utilities AES Corporation Ameren Corporation Capstone Infrastructure El Paso Electric FirstEnergy Corp. National Fuel Gas PNM Resources Progress Energy, Inc. Questar Corp WGL Holdings Westar Energy