The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of The Sherwin-Williams Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively, the Company) have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (US GAAP) for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by US GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included.

The Company has historically experienced, and expects to continue to experience, variability in quarterly results. The results of operations for the three and six months ended March 31,June 30, 2022 are not indicative of the results to be expected for the full year as business is seasonal in nature with the majority of Net sales for the Reportable Segments traditionally occurring during the second and third quarters. However, periods of economic uncertainty can alter the Company's seasonal patterns.

Subsequent toDuring the second quarter end,of 2022, the Company completed the acquisition of the European industrial coatings business of Sika AG (Sika). for $211.4 million. This business engineers, manufactures and sells corrosion protection coating systems and fire protection coating systems. The acquired business will be reported within the Company’s Performance Coatings Group. The Company expects to complete the preliminary purchase price allocation for the acquisition within the allowable measurement period. The results of operations of this acquisition have been included in the financial statements since the acquisition date. Pro

In accordance with the Goodwill and Other Intangibles Topic of the ASC, goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets are tested for impairment annually during the fourth quarter, and interim impairment tests are performed whenever an event occurs or circumstances change that indicate an impairment has more likely than not occurred.

The following table summarizes the Company’s outstanding debt:

The Company’s long-term debt primarily consists of senior notes. For further details on the Company’s debt, including available credit facilities and related agreements, see Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

The following table summarizes the components of the Company’s net periodic benefit cost for domestic and foreign defined benefit pension plans and other postretirement benefits:

Service cost is recorded in Cost of goods sold and Selling, general and administrative expenses. All other components are recorded in Other expense (income) - net. For further details on the Company’s pension and other postretirement benefits, see Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

The operations of the Company, like those of other companies in its industry, are subject to various domestic and foreign environmental laws and regulations. These laws and regulations not only govern current operations and products, but also impose potential liability on the Company for past operations. Management expects environmental laws and regulations to impose increasingly stringent requirements upon the Company and the industry in the future. Management believes that the Company conducts its operations in compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and has implemented various programs designed to protect the environment and promote continued compliance.

The Company is involved with environmental investigation and remediation activities at some of its currently and formerly owned sites (including sites which were previously owned and/or operated by businesses acquired by the Company). In addition, the Company, together with other parties, has been designated a potentially responsible party under federal and state environmental protection laws for the investigation and remediation of environmental contamination and hazardous waste at a number of third-party sites, primarily Superfund sites. In general, these laws provide that potentially responsible parties may be held jointly and severally liable for investigation and remediation costs regardless of fault. The Company may be similarly designated with respect to additional third-party sites in the future.

The Company initially provides for estimated costs of environmental-related activities relating to its past operations and third-party sites for which commitments or clean-up plans have been developed and when such costs can be reasonably estimated based on industry standards and professional judgment. These estimated costs, which are mostly undiscounted, are determined based on currently available facts regarding each site. If the reasonably estimable costs can only be identified as a range and no

specific amount within that range can be determined more likely than any other amount within the range, the minimum of the range is provided.

The largest and most complex of the Major Sites is the Gibbsboro, New Jersey site (“Gibbsboro”) which comprises the substantial majority of the environmental-related accrual. Gibbsboro, a former manufacturing plant, and related areas, which ceased operations in 1978, has had various areas included on the National Priorities List since 1999. This location has soil, waterbodies, and groundwater contamination related to the historic operations of the facility. Gibbsboro has been divided by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) into 6 operable units (“OUs”) based on location and characteristics, whose investigation and remediation efforts are likely to occur over an extended period of time. Each of the OUs are in various phases of investigation and remediation with the EPA that provide enough information to reasonably estimate cost ranges and record environmental-related accruals. The most significant assumptions underlying the reliability and precision of remediation cost estimates for the Gibbsboro site are the type and extent of future remedies to be selected by the EPA and the costs of implementing those remedies.

The remaining 3 Major Sites comprising the majority of the accrual include (1) a multi-party Superfund site that has received a record of decision from the federal EPA and is currently in the remedial design phase for one OU and for which a remedial investigation/feasibility study has been submitted for another OU, (2) a closed paint manufacturing facility that is in the operation and maintenance phase of remediation under both federal and state EPA programs, and (3) a formerly-owned site containing warehouse and office space that is in the remedial investigation phase under a state EPA program. Each of these 3 Major Sites are in phases of investigation and remediation that provide sufficient information to reasonably estimate cost ranges and record environmental-related accruals.

Excluding the Major Sites discussed above, no sites are individually material to the total accrual balance. There are multiple, future events yet to occur, including further remedy selection and design, remedy implementation and execution, and securing applicable governmental agency approvals, all of which have the potential to contribute to the uncertainty surrounding these future events. As these events occur and to the extent that the cost estimates of the environmental remediation change, the existing reserve will be adjusted.

insurance, indemnification agreements or other sources. In the event any future loss contingency significantly exceeds the current amount accrued, the recording of the ultimate liability may result in a material impact on net income for the annual or interim period during which the additional costs are accrued. Moreover, management does not believe that any potential liability ultimately attributed to the Company for its environmental-related matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, liquidity, or cash flow due to the extended length of time during which environmental investigation and remediation takes place. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s operations cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

Management expects these contingent environmental-related liabilities to be resolved over an extended period of time. Management is unable to provide a more specific time frame due to the indeterminate amount of time to conduct investigation activities at any site, the indeterminate amount of time to obtain environmental agency approval, as necessary, with respect to investigation and remediation activities, and the indeterminate amount of time necessary to conduct remediation activities.

The Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations Topic of the ASC requires a liability to be recognized for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation if a settlement date and fair value can be reasonably estimated. The Company recognizes a liability for any conditional asset retirement obligation when sufficient information is available to reasonably estimate a settlement date to determine the fair value of such a liability. The Company has identified certain conditional asset retirement obligations at various current and closed manufacturing, distribution and store facilities. These obligations relate primarily to asbestos abatement, hazardous waste Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closures, well abandonment, transformers and used oil disposals and underground storage tank closures. Using investigative, remediation and disposal methods that are currently available to the Company, the estimated costs of these obligations were accrued and are not significant. The recording of additional liabilities for future conditional asset retirement obligations may result in a material impact on net income for the annual or interim period during which the costs are accrued. Management does not believe that any potential liability ultimately attributed to the Company for its conditional asset retirement obligations will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, liquidity, or cash flow due to the extended period of time over which sufficient information may become available regarding the closure or modification of any one or group of the Company’s facilities. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s operations cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

In the course of its business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and lawsuits, including, but not limited to, litigation relating to product liability and warranty, personal injury, environmental, intellectual property, commercial, contractual and antitrust claims that are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Company. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur confirming the incurrence of a liability or the reduction of a liability. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the ASC, the Company accrues for these contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that the Company’s loss contingency is ultimately determined to be significantly higher than currently accrued, the recording of the additional liability may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such additional liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded because it is not probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated, any potential liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded or exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, the Contingencies Topic of the ASC requires disclosure of the contingency when there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred.

surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint. The Company believes that the litigation brought to date is without merit or subject to meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending such litigation. The Company expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against any additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation that may be filed, including utilizing all avenues of appeal, if necessary.

Notwithstanding the Company’s views on the merits, litigation is inherently subject to many uncertainties, and the Company ultimately may not prevail. Adverse court rulings or determinations of liability, among other factors, could affect the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation against the Company and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future claims and proceedings. In addition, from time to time, various legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted, promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company and other manufacturers have been successful.

Due to the uncertainties involved, management is unable to predict the outcome of the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation, the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings or the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations may have on the litigation or against the Company. In addition, management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or resulting from any such legislation and regulations. Except with respect to the litigation in California discussed below, the Company has not accrued any amounts for such litigation because the Company does not believe it is probable that a loss has occurred, and the Company believes it is not possible to estimate the range of potential losses as there is no substantive information upon which an estimate could be based. In addition, any potential liability that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations cannot reasonably be estimated. Due to the uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in such litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s results of operations, cash flow, liquidity or financial condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

In the Lehigh County action, the trial court denied the defendants’ preliminary objections on August 6, 2021. Defendants filed a motion to amend the order to allow an interlocutory appeal or, in the alternative, for reconsideration. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion on September 13, 2021. On September 27, 2021, the Company answered the complaint, asserted new matter and affirmative defenses, alleged counterclaims against Lehigh County, and filed a third-party complaint against certain County officials, other owners of pre-1980 housing, and lead abatement contractors who have been cited for violating state or local laws. On October 13, 2021, the defendants filed with the Superior Court, one of Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate courts, a petition for permission to appeal the trial court’s order denying the defendants’ preliminary objections. On November 17, 2021, the Superior Court transferred the appeal to the Commonwealth Court, another one of Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate courts.

In the Montgomery County action, the trial court denied the defendants’ preliminary objections on October 15, 2021. The defendants filed a motion to amend the order overruling their preliminary objections to allow an interlocutory appeal, which the trial court granted on November 9, 2021. On December 3, 2021, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal with the Commonwealth Court.

The Commonwealth Court granted the defendants’ petitions for permission to appeal in both the Montgomery County and Lehigh County actions on February 18, 2022, and stayed all proceedings in the trial courts pending the appellate court proceedings. The Company’sCompany filed its opening appellate briefs in both actions are due on May 18, 2022. Montgomery County and Lehigh County filed their appellate briefs on July 21, 2022.

The plaintiff in Thomas v. Lead Industries Association, et al., initiated an action in Wisconsin state court against the Company, other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers and the Lead Industries Association in September 1999. The claims against the defendants included strict liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentation and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy and enterprise liability. Implicit within these claims is the theory of “risk contribution” liability (Wisconsin’s theory is similar to market share liability, except that liability can be joint and several) due to the plaintiff’s inability to identify the manufacturer of any product that allegedly injured the plaintiff. The case ultimately proceeded to trial and, on November 5, 2007, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the plaintiff had ingested white lead carbonate, but was not brain damaged or injured as a result. The plaintiff appealed, and on December 16, 2010, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of the defendants.

Wisconsin is the only jurisdiction to date to apply a theory of liability with respect to alleged personal injury (i.e., risk contribution/market share liability) that does not require the plaintiff to identify the manufacturer of the product that allegedly injured the plaintiff in the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. Although the risk contribution liability theory was applied during the Thomas trial, the constitutionality of this theory as applied to the lead pigment cases has not been judicially determined by the Wisconsin state courts. However, in an unrelated action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., on November 15, 2010, the district court held that Wisconsin’s risk contribution theory as applied in that case violated the defendants’ right to substantive due process and is unconstitutionally retroactive. The district court’s decision in Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., was appealed by the plaintiff to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On July 24, 2014, the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. On January 16, 2015, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Seventh Circuit’s decision, and on May 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendants’ petition. The case is currently pending in the district court.

In Maniya Allen, et al. v. American Cyanamid, et al., also pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, cases involving 6 of the 146 plaintiffs were selected for discovery. In Dijonae Trammell, et al. v. American Cyanamid, et al., also pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, discovery for 1 of the 3 plaintiffs was consolidated with the 6 Allen cases referenced above. The parties selected 4 of the cases to proceed to expert discovery and to prepare for trial. The district court previously issued an order scheduling trial in the 4 cases to commence on June 15, 2020, but the trial date was continued due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and no new trial date has been scheduled.

On May 20, 2021, the Company and the three3 other defendants filed motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims of all plaintiffs then pending in the district court as a result of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in favor of the Company in the Owens, Sifuentes and Burton cases. On March 3, 2022, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants on all claims then pending in the district court.

On March 31, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to alter or amend the judgment. The Company and the other defendants opposed the motion on April 21, 2022. The plaintiffs filed a reply in support of the motion on May 6, 2022.

On August 24, 2021, the plaintiff in Arrieona Beal v. Armstrong Containers, Inc., et al. filed an amended complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, naming the Company and other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers as defendants pursuant to the risk contribution liability theory. The defendants answered the plaintiff’s complaint on December 17, 2021. On March 2, 2022, the plaintiff filed a motion for declaratory judgment seeking to clarify Wisconsin law following the Seventh Circuit’s decision in favor of the Company in the Owens, Sifuentes and Burton cases. On March 25, 2022,cases, to which the Company responded on April 15, 2022. Prior to filing its response to the declaratory judgment motion, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.Wisconsin on March 25, 2022. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state circuit court on April 7, 2022. The Company’s response to2022, the declaratory judgment motion was filed in federal court on April 15, 2022, and the Company’s opposition toCompany opposed the motion to remand is dueon May 6, 2022, and the plaintiff filed a reply in support of the motion on May 12, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions related to bethe Company’s removal of the case to federal court, to which the Company responded on May 27, 2022.

On May 10, 2022, select plaintiffs in the Wisconsin federal court cases filed a petition to take jurisdiction of the original action with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The petition requests the Supreme Court to provide guidance on April 28,certain legal questions involved in the plaintiffs’ pending federal court cases (the same questions presented in Beal’s declaratory judgment motion pending in the Eastern District of Wisconsin). On June 22, 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered the defendants to file a response addressing whether the Supreme Court should take original jurisdiction. The Company and other defendants filed their response on July 20, 2022.

An ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation would mean that insurance proceeds could be unavailable under the policies at issue to mitigate any ultimate abatement related costs and liabilities. The Company has not recorded any assets related to these insurance policies or otherwise assumed that proceeds from these insurance policies would be received in estimating any contingent liability accrual. Therefore, an ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation without a determination of liability against the Company in the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation will have no impact on the Company’s results of operation, liquidity or financial condition. As previously stated, however, except with respect to the litigation in California discussed above, the Company has not accrued any amounts for the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation and any significant liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company relating to such litigation may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued.

In February 2022, the Company received proceeds of $22.0 million in conjunction with the issuance of treasury shares to fund Company contributions to the domestic defined contribution plan. In April 2021, the Company received proceeds of $11.7 million in conjunction with the issuance of shares to fund obligations related to a non-qualified benefit plan.

The components of accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income (AOCI), including the reclassification adjustments for items that were reclassified from AOCI to net income, are shown below.

The Company has 2 U.S. Dollar to Euro cross currency swap contracts to hedge the Company's net investment in its European operations. The contracts have a notional value of $500.0 million and $244.0 million, respectively, and mature on June 1, 2024 and June 1, 2027, respectively. During the term of the contracts, the Company will pay fixed-rate interest in Euros and receive fixed-rate interest in U.S. Dollars, thereby effectively converting a portion of the Company's U.S. Dollar denominated fixed-rate debt to Euro denominated fixed-rate debt. At December 31, 2021, the contracts had a notional value of $500.0 million and $244.0 million, respectively, and maturity dates of June 1, 2024 and June 1, 2027, respectively. In April 2022, the Company settled a portion of the $244.0 million contract, which reduced the outstanding notional value to $162.7 million. An immaterial loss was recognized in AOCI at the time of settlement.

The following table summarizes the balance sheet location of the cross currency swaps. See Note 13 for additional information on the fair value of these contracts.

The changes in fair value of the cross currency swap contracts are recognized in the foreign currency translation adjustments component of AOCI. The following table summarizes the unrealized gains (losses) for the three and six months ended March 31,June 30, 2022 and 2021.