UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
SCHEDULE 14A
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No.     )
 
Filed by the Registrant x   Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨
Check the appropriate box:
¨o Preliminary Proxy Statement
¨o Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
x Definitive Proxy Statement
¨o Definitive Additional Materials
¨o Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12

ELI LILLY AND 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.
   
¨o Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) 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:
     
     
¨o Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
     
¨o 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:
     
  
SEC 1913 (11-01)Persons who are to respond to the collection of information contained in this form are not required to respond unless the form displays a currently valid OMB control number.





Note: Due to a filing error, we are refiling the Definitive Proxy Statement for our 2013 annual meeting


Notice of shareholders to clarify that it is the Definitive Proxy Statement and not Additional Soliciting Materials. This filing does not update, amend or restate items in the proxy statement for the 2013 annual meeting2016 Annual Meeting of shareholders, which continue to speak as of the date of original filing, March 25, 2013.
2013 Annual MeetingShareholders and Proxy Statement
March 25, 2013
Dear Shareholder:
You are cordially invited to attend our annual meeting of shareholders on Monday, May 6, 2013.
The notice of meeting and proxy statement that follow describe the business we will consider at the meeting.






Your vote is very important. I urge you toimportant
Please vote by mail, byusing the Internet, telephone, or onby signing, dating, and returning the Internet to be certain your shares are represented at the meeting, even if you plan to attend.enclosed proxy card.

Please note the ticket at the back



Table of this proxy statement and our procedures for admission to the meeting described under “Meeting and Voting Logistics” below.
I look forward to seeing you at the meeting.

 
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Contents
P1
P2
P8
P8
P8




Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders

To the holders of Common Stock of Eli Lilly and Company:
The 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company will be held as shown below:
���WHEN:11:00 a.m. EDT, Monday, May 2, 2016
WHERE:The Lilly Center Auditorium Lilly Corporate Center Indianapolis, Indiana 46285
 
ITEMS OF BUSINESS:Election of the five directors listed in the proxy statement to serve three-year terms
Approval, by non-binding vote, of the compensation paid to the company's named executive officers
Ratification of Ernst & Young LLP as the principal independent auditors for 2016
If presented, a shareholder proposal seeking a report regarding how we select the countries in which we operate or invest
WHO CAN VOTE:Shareholders of record at the close of business on February 26, 2016
This proxy statement is dated March 21, 2016 and is first being sent or given to our shareholders on or about the date.
See the back page of this report for information regarding how to attend the meeting. Every shareholder vote is important. If you are unable to attend the meeting in person, please sign, date, and return your proxy and/or voting instructions by mail, telephone or through the Internet promptly so that a quorum may be represented at the meeting.
By order of the Board of Directors,
James B. Lootens
Secretary
March 21, 2016
Indianapolis, Indiana

Important notice regarding the availability of proxy materials for the shareholder meeting to be held May 6, 2013:
2, 2016: The annual report and proxy statement are available at http:https://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2012.pdf
Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders_Assets/PDF/lillyar2015.pdf.
May 6, 2013
The annual meeting of shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company will be held at the Lilly Center Auditorium, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46285 on Monday, May 6, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. EDT for the following purposes:
to elect five directors of the company to serve three-year terms
to ratify the appointment by the audit committee of Ernst & Young LLP as principal independent auditor for the year 2013
to approve, by non-binding vote, compensation paid to the company’s named executive officers
to reapprove the material terms of the performance goals for the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan.
Shareholders of record at the close of business on March 1, 2013, will be entitled to vote at the meeting and at any adjournment of the meeting.
Attendance at the meeting will be limited to shareholders, those holding proxies from shareholders, and invited guests from the media and financial community. A page at the back of this report contains an admission ticket. If you plan to attend the meeting, please bring this ticket with you.
This combined proxy statement and annual report to shareholders is being posted online and mailed on or about March 25, 2013.
By order of the board of directors,
James B. Lootens
Secretary
March 25, 2013
Indianapolis, Indiana

1P1



Proxy Statement Overview

Annual Meeting of ShareholdersGeneral Information
The annual meeting of shareholders will be held at 11:00 a.m. EDT on Monday, May 6, 2013 at:

The Lilly Center Auditorium
Lilly Corporate Center
Indianapolis, Indiana 46285

The board of directors of Eli LillyThis overview highlights information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement. It does not contain all the information you should consider, and Company, "we," "Lilly," or "the company," is soliciting proxies to be voted atyou should read the annual meeting and at any adjournment of the annual meeting. The record date for voting is March 1, 2013.

Meeting Agenda
Shareholders will vote on the following items at the annual meeting:entire proxy statement carefully before voting.
Agenda
Item




Management
recommendation
Vote required to pass
Item 1Elect the following nominees for director to serve a three-year term that will expire in 2016:Vote FOR allMajority of
votes cast

Name and principal occupationJoined the boardAgePublic boards








Ralph Alvarez
200957Lowe's Companies, Inc.; Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc.Vote FOR

Executive Chairman,
Skylark Co., Ltd.








Sir Winfried Bischoff
200071The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.Vote FOR

Chairman, Lloyds Banking Group plc








R. David Hoover
200967Ball Corporation;
Energizer Holdings, Inc.; Steelcase, Inc.
Vote FOR

Chairman, Ball Corporation








Franklyn G. Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D.
199568__Vote FOR

Edmond and Marion Guggenheim Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Professor of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Mayo Medical School; and Director Emeritus, Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine








Kathi P. Seifert199563Supervalu Inc.; Revlon Consumer Products Corporation; Lexmark International, Inc.Vote FOR

Retired Executive Vice President, Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Item 2Ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the company’s principal independent auditor.Vote FORMajority of
votes cast
Item 3Approve, by non-binding vote, compensation paid to the company’s named executive officers.Vote FORMajority of
votes cast
Item 4Reapprove the material terms of the performance goals for the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan.Vote FORMajority of
votes cast
Meeting:Annual Meeting of ShareholdersDate:May 2, 2016
Time:11:00 a.m. EDTLocation:The Lilly Center Auditorium Lilly Corporate Center Indianapolis, Indiana 46285
Record Date:February 26, 2016
Items of Business:
Item 1: Election of the five directors listed in this proxy statement to serve three-year terms.
Item 2: Approval, by non-binding vote, of the compensation paid to the company's named executive officers.
Item 3: Ratification of Ernst & Young LLP as the principal independent auditors for 2016.
Item 4: If presented, a shareholder proposal seeking a report regarding how we select the countries in which we operate or invest.

Additional information about these agenda items can be found under “ItemsWhat Is New In This Year's Proxy Statement

In 2015, we returned to revenue and earnings growth, launched a number of Business” below. Information on votingnew products, made significant late-stage pipeline progress, and attending thedelivered strong returns to shareholders. As a result, we resumed annual meeting can be found under “Meetingincreases to base salaries and Voting Logistics” below.delivered incentive compensation reflective of our performance.

BoardAdditionally, we restated our executive officers' share ownership requirements from a fixed number of Directors
shares to a multiple of annual base salary for all executives, excluding the CEO. The company’s board is comprised of our chairman, president, and CEO, John Lechleiter, Ph.D., and 13 independent directors. Their biographies and qualifications can be found under “Director Biographies” below.CEO's requirement remains six times annual base salary.

CommitteesIn February 2016, we welcomed Juan R. Luciano to the board. Mr. Luciano is the Chairman and CEO of Archer Daniels Midland Company.

Highlights of 2015 Company Performance

The following provides a brief look at our 2015 performance in three dimensions: operating performance, innovation progress, and returns to shareholders. See our 2015 annual report on Form 10-K for more details.

Operating Performance
In 2015, we returned to revenue and earnings growth following a multi-year period of patent expirations. This growth was led by several pharmaceutical products, including Cyramza, Trulicity and Humalog, as well as Erbitux due to the transfer of commercialization rights in North America. This growth was partially offset by the residual impact of the boardloss of directorsexclusivity for Cymbalta and Evista.
The board has six committees, all
Performance highlights included:
2015 revenue increased 2 percent to approximately $20 billion.
2015 earnings per share (EPS) increased 1 percent on a reported basis to $2.26, and increased 13 percent on a non-GAAP basis to $3.43.

*A reconciliation of which are staffed by independent directors. Additional information on the functioning of the boardGAAP and its committees, including director independence, can be found beginningexternally reported non-GAAP measures is included in the section titled “Highlights of the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines” below.Appendix A.


2P2



Innovation Progress
We made significant advances with our pipeline in 2015, including:
U.S. FDA approval of six new products, including Portrazza™, in combination with gecitabine and cisplatin, Cyramza® for treatment of colorectal cancer, Glyxambi®, Basaglar®, and Synjardy®.
A late-stage pipeline including 9 potential new medicines or diagnostic agents in either Phase III development or submission stage.
FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designations for abemaciclib for patients with refractory hormone-receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer and for olaratumab for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma.
Positive Phase III results for ixekizumab, an investigational medicine for patients with psoriatic arthritis.
Positive Phase III results for baricitinib, an investigational medicine for patients with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis.
Positive results from a long-term clinical trial investigating cardiovascular outcomes for Jardiance®.

DirectorReturns to Shareholders
We generated strong total shareholder returns (share price appreciation plus dividends, reinvested quarterly) for the one-, three-, and five-year periods through year-end 2015, including a 25% percent increase from 2014 to 2015. Our returns exceeded both the compensation peer group and the S&P 500 in all three periods:
Our independent directors receive

Consistent with our ongoing commitment to returning excess cash compensationto shareholders, we returned approximately $2.9 billion in cash to shareholders in 2015 in the form of an annual retainer ($100,000), with additional annual amounts fordividends and share repurchases. In the lead director ($30,000), committee chairs ($12,000past four years, we have returned $12.5 billion in cash to $18,000, depending on the committee),shareholders through dividends and directors who serve on the audit committee or the science and technology committee ($3,000). In addition, each independent director receives $145,000 in shares of company stock each year, payable after service on the board has ended. Additional information about director compensation can be found under “Director Compensation” below.

Contacting the board of directors
You may send written communications to one or more members of the board, addressed to:
Board of Directors
Eli Lilly and Company
c/o Corporate Secretary
Lilly Corporate Center
Indianapolis, Indiana 46285

All such communications (from shareholders or other interested parties) will be forwarded to the relevant
director(s), except for solicitations or other matters unrelated to the company.

Executive Compensation
Our compensation philosophy is designed to attract and retain highly-talented individuals and motivate them to create long-term shareholder value by achieving top-tier corporate performance while embracing the company’s values of integrity, excellence, and respect for people. Our programs seek to:
closely link compensation with company performance and individual performance
foster a long-term focus
provide compensation consistent with the level of job responsibility and the market for pharmaceutical talent
be efficient and egalitarian
appropriately mitigate risk
consider shareholder input.

For a detailed discussion of our executive compensation programs and how they reflect our philosophy and are linked to company performance, please see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” below.share repurchases.





3P3



BoardGovernance (pages 8-27)

Item 1: Election of Directors (pages 8-25)
Name and principal occupationJoined the BoardAgePublic boardsManagement recommendation
Vote required to pass

Ralph Alvarez200960Skylark Co., Ltd.Vote FORMajority of votes cast
Executive Chairman - Skylark Co., Ltd.Lowe's Companies, Inc.
  Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc.
   Realogy Holdings Corp.
R. David Hoover200970Ball CorporationVote FORMajority of votes cast
Former Chairman, President and CEO - Ball CorporationEdgewell Personal Care Co.
Steelcase, Inc.
Juan R. Luciano201653Archer Daniels Midland Co.Vote FORMajority of votes cast
Chief Executive Officer and President - Archer Daniels Midland Company 
Franklyn G. Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D.199571Cancer Genetics IncorporatedVote FORMajority of votes cast
Former Edmond and Marion Guggenheim Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology - Mayo Medical Clinic 
Kathi P. Seifert199566Investors Community BankVote FORMajority of votes cast
Former Executive Vice President - Kimberly-Clark CorporationLexmark International, Inc.
 

Our Corporate Governance Policies Reflect Best Practices
Our Board membership is marked by leadership, experience, and diversity.
All 13 of our nonemployee directors, and all Board committee members, are independent.
We have a strong, independent lead director role.
Our Board actively participates in company strategy and CEO/senior executive succession planning.
Our Board oversees compliance and enterprise risk management practices.
We have in place meaningful stock ownership requirements.
We have a majority voting standard and resignation policy for the election of directors.

Compensation (pages 27-52)

Item 2: Advisory Vote on Compensation Paid to Named Executive Officers (pages 27-28)
Michael L. EskewKatherine Baicker, Ph.D.Alfred G. Gilman, M.D., Ph.D.Karen N. Horn, Ph.D.Franklyn G. Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D.J. Erik FyrwaldManagement recommendationR. David Hoover
Vote required to pass

Item 2
Approve, by non-binding vote, compensation paid to the company's named executive officers

Vote FORMajority of
votes cast

Our Executive Compensation Programs Reflect Best Practices
We have had strong shareholder support of compensation practices: in 2015, over 98 percent of shares cast voted in favor of our executive compensation.
Our compensation programs are designed to align with shareholder interests and link pay to performance through a blend of short- and long-term performance measures.
Our Compensation Committee annually reviews compensation programs to ensure appropriate risk mitigation.
We have a broad compensation recovery policy that applies to all executives and covers a wide range of misconduct.

P4



Director BiographiesOur executives are subject to robust stock ownership guidelines and are prohibited from hedging or pledging their company stock.
We do not have "top hat" retirement plans - supplemental plans are open to all employees and are limited to restoring benefits lost due to IRS limits on qualified plans.
We do not provide tax gross-ups to executive officers (except for limited gross-ups related to international assignments).
We have a very restrictive policy on perquisites.
Our severance plans related to change-in-control generally require a double trigger.
We do not have employment agreements with any of our executive officers.

Executive Compensation Summary for 2015
At the time the total target compensation was established at the end of 2014, compensation for our named executive officers (the five officers whose compensation is disclosed in this proxy statement) was in the middle range of the company's peer group. Incentive compensation program payouts were increased, consistent with the company's strong performance in 2015, as outlined below under "Pay for Performance."

Pay for Performance
As described more fully in the Compensation Disclosures and Analysis (CD&A) section, we link our incentive pay programs to a balanced mix of measures on three dimensions of company performance: (1) operating performance; (2) progress with our innovation pipeline; and (3) shareholder returns.

The summary information below highlights how our incentive pay programs align with company performance. Please see the CD&A for details of how our three incentive pay programs work and how the payouts for 2015 were calculated. Please also see Appendix A for adjustments that were made to revenue and earnings per share (EPS) for incentive compensation programs.

2015 Annual Bonus Multiple
The company exceeded its annual bonus targets for revenue, EPS, and pipeline progress.


*Performance goal multiples are capped at 2.0.



P5



2015 Performance Award Multiple
We fell short of our EPS targets under our Performance Award program, which has targets based on expected EPS growth of peer companies over a two-year period.


2015 Shareholder Value Award Multiple
We significantly exceeded our stock price growth targets under our Shareholder Value Award program, which has targets based on expected large-cap company returns over a three-year period.



P6



Audit Matters (pages 53-55)

Item 3: Proposal to Ratify Appointment of Independent Auditor (pages 53-55)
Management recommendation
Vote required to pass

Item 3
Ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the company's principal independent auditor for 2016

Vote FORMajority of
votes cast

Shareholder Proposal (pages 56-57)

Item 4: Proposal Seeking A Report Regarding How We Select the Countries in Which We Operate and Invest (pages 56-57)
Management recommendation
Vote required to pass

Item 4Consider a shareholder proposal seeking a report regarding how we select the countries in which we operate and investVote AGAINSTMajority of
votes cast


Other Information (pages 57-60)

How to Vote in Advance of the Meeting
Even if you plan to attend the 2016 Annual Meeting in person, we encourage you to vote prior to the meeting via one of the methods described below. You can vote in advance via one of three ways:

8Visit the website listed on your proxy card/voting instruction form to vote VIA THE INTERNET

)Call the telephone number on your proxy card/voting instruction form to vote BY TELEPHONE

*Sign, date and return your proxy card/voting instruction form to vote BY MAIL

Further information on how to vote is provided at the end of the proxy statement under "Meeting and Voting Logistics".

Voting at our 2016 Annual Meeting
You may also opt to vote in person at the 2016 Annual Meeting, which will be held on Monday, May 2, 2016 at the Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, at 11:00 a.m., local time. See the section entitled "Meeting and Voting Logistics" for more information.


P7



Governance

Item 1. Election of Directors

Under the company’s articles of incorporation, the Board is divided into three classes with approximately one-third of the directors standing for election each year. The term for directors to be elected this year will expire at the annual meeting of shareholders held in 2019. Each of the nominees listed below has agreed to serve that term. The following sections provide information regarding our directors including their qualifications, the director nomination process, and compensation, among other topics.

Board Recommendation on Item 1

The Board recommends that you vote FOR each of the following nominees:
Ralph Alvarez
R. David Hoover
Juan R. Luciano
Franklyn G. Prendergast
Kathi P. Seifert

Board Operations and Governance

Board of Directors



From left to right: Franklyn G. Prendergast, Michael L. Eskew, Karen N. Horn, Juan R. Luciano, Katherine Baicker, J. Erik Fyrwald, R. David Hoover, John C. Lechleiter, Ralph Alvarez, Ellen R. Marram, Marschall S. Runge, William G. Kaelin, Jr., Kathi P. Seifert, and Jackson P. Tai.

Each of our directors is elected to serve until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified. If a nominee is unavailable for election, proxy holders may vote for another nominee proposed by the boardBoard of directorsDirectors or, as an alternative, the boardBoard of directorsDirectors may reduce the number of directors to be elected at the annual meeting. Each nominee has agreed to serve on the board of directors if elected.


P8



Director Biographies

Set forth below is the information as of March 13, 2013,9, 2016, regarding the nominees for election, which has been confirmed by each of them for inclusion in this proxy statement. UnderWe have provided the heading "Qualifications," we list the specificmost significant experiences, qualifications, attributes, or skills that led to the conclusion that each director or director nominee should serve as one of our directors in light of our business and structure. Full biographies for each of our directors are available on our website at http://www.lilly.com/about/board-of-directors/Pages/board-of-directors.aspx.

No family relationship exists among any of our directors, director nominees, or executive officers. To the best of our knowledge, there are no pending material legal proceedings toin which any of our directors or nominees for director, or any of their associates, is a party adverse to us or any of our affiliates, or has a material interest adverse to us or any of our affiliates. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, there have been no events under any bankruptcy act, no criminal proceedings and no

judgments, sanctions, or injunctions during the past 10 years that are material to the evaluation of the ability or integrity of any of our directors or nominees for director. There is no arrangement between any director during the past
10 years.or director nominee and any other person pursuant to which he or she was or is to be selected as a director or director nominee.

Class of 20132016
The following five directors’ termsdirectors will expirebe seeking election at this year’syear's annual meeting. Four of these directors are standing for reelection; one director is seeking election for the first time. See “Item 1. Election of Directors” belowabove for more information.

Ralph Alvarez,Age 57, Director since 2009
Executive Chairman,
Ralph Alvarez, age 60, director since 2009
Board Committees: Compensation; Science and Technology
Career HighlightsOther Board Service
Skylark Co., Ltd., a leading restaurant operator in Japan
Public boards: Skylark Co., Ltd.; Lowe's Companies, Inc.; Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc.; Realogy Holdings Corp.
Executive Chairman (2013 - present)
McDonald's Corporation
Prior public boards: McDonald's Corporation; KeyCorp
President and Chief Operating Officer (2006 - 2009)
Memberships and Other Organizations
University of Miami: President's Council; School of Business Administration Board of Overseers; International Advisory Board
Qualifications: Through his senior executive positions at Skylark Co., Ltd. and McDonald’s Corporation, as well as with other global restaurant businesses, Mr. Alvarez has extensive experience in consumer marketing, global operations, international business, and strategic planning. His international experience includes a special focus on Japan and emerging markets. He also has extensive corporate governance experience through his service on other public company boards.
Mr. Alvarez is executive chairman of Skylark Co., Ltd., a leading restaurant operator in Japan, a position he has held since January 2013. Previously, Mr. Alvarez served as president and chief operating officer of McDonald's Corporation from August 2006 until his retirement in December 2009. He also served as president of McDonald's North America, with responsibility for all the McDonald's restaurants in the U.S. and Canada. Prior to that, he was president of McDonald's USA.
Mr. Alvarez joined McDonald's in 1994 and held a variety of leadership roles throughout his career, including chief operations officer and president of the central division, both with McDonald's USA and president of McDonald's Mexico. Prior to joining McDonald's, he held leadership positions at Burger King Corporation and Wendy's International, Inc. Mr. Alvarez serves on the board of directors of Skylark Co., Ltd., Lowe's
R. David Hoover, age 70, director since 2009
Board Committees: Finance (chair); Directors and Corporate Governance
Career HighlightsOther Board Service
Ball Corporation, a provider of packaging products and other technologies and services to commercial and governmental customers
Public boards: Ball Corporation; Edgewell Personal Care Co.; Steelcase, Inc.
Chairman (2002 - 2013)
Prior public boards: Qwest International, Inc.
President and Chief Executive Officer (2001 - 2010)
Non-profit boards: Boulder Community Hospital; Children's Hospital Colorado; DePauw University
Chief Operating Officer (2000 - 2001)
Chief Financial Officer (1998 - 2000)
Memberships and Other Organizations
Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Dean's Council
Qualifications: Mr. Hoover has extensive CEO experience at Ball Corporation, with a strong record of leadership in operations and strategy. He has deep financial expertise as a result of his experience as CEO and CFO of Ball. He also has extensive corporate governance experience through his service on other public company boards.


4P9



Juan R. Luciano, age 54, director since 2016
Board Committees: Finance; Public Policy and Compliance
Career HighlightsOther Board Service
Archer Daniels Midland Company, a global food-processing and commodities-trading company
• •
Public boards: Archer Daniels Midland Company Non-profit boards: Boys and Girls Clubs of America
Chairman (January 2016 - present)
Chief Executive Officer and President (2015 - present)
President (2014 - 2015)
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer (2011 - 2014)
The Dow Chemical Company, a multi-national chemical company
Executive Vice President and President, Performance Division (2010 - 2011)
Qualifications: Mr. Luciano has CEO and global business experience with Archer Daniels Midland Company, where he has established a reputation for strong result-oriented and strategic leadership, as well as many years of global leadership experience at The Dow Chemical Company. He brings to the board a strong technology and operations background, along with expertise in the food and agriculture sectors, an expanding area of focus for Lilly and its Elanco business.

Franklyn G. Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D., age 71, director since 1995
Board Committees: Public Policy and Compliance; Science and Technology
Career HighlightsOther Board Service
Mayo Medical School
Public boards: Cancer Genetics Incorporated
Edmond and Marion Guggenheim Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (1986 - 2014)
Professor of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (1987 - 2014)
Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine, Director Emeritus (2006 - 2012)
Qualifications: Dr. Prendergast is a prominent medical clinician, researcher, and academician. He has extensive experience in senior-most administration at Mayo Clinic, a major medical institution, and as director of its renowned cancer center. He retired from Mayo at the end of 2014. He has special expertise in two critical areas for Lilly—oncology and personalized medicine. As a medical doctor, he brings an important practicing-physician perspective to the Board’s deliberations.

Kathi P. Seifert, age 66, director since 1995
Board Committees: Audit; Compensation
Career HighlightsOther Board Service
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a global consumer products company
Public boards: Investors Community Bank; Lexmark International, Inc.
Executive Vice President (1999 - 2004)
Katapult, LLC, a provider of pro bono mentoring and consulting services to non-profit organizations
Private boards: Appvion, Inc.
Prior public boards: Albertsons; Revlon Consumer Products Co.; Supervalu Inc.
Chairman (2004 - present)
Non-profit boards: Community Foundation for the Fox Valley Region; Fox Cities Building for the Arts; Fox Cities Chamber of Commerce; New North
Qualifications: Ms. Seifert is a retired senior executive of Kimberly-Clark. She has strong expertise in consumer marketing and brand management, having led sales and marketing for several worldwide brands, with a special focus on consumer health. She has extensive corporate governance experience through her other board positions.



P10



Class of 2017

The following five directors will continue in office until May 2017, with the exception of Karen N. Horn, who will retire from the Board on May 2, 2016, prior to the annual meeting of shareholders. The Directors and Corporate Governance Committee has not yet identified and evaluated a candidate to fill the vacancy created by Ms. Horn's retirement. Our board expects to reduce the size of the board until it identifies a candidate to fill the vacancy.
Michael L. Eskew, age 66, director since 2008
Board Committees: Audit (chair); Finance; Directors and Corporate Governance
Career HighlightsOther Board Service
United Parcel Service, Inc., a global shipping and logistics company
Public boards: 3M Corporation; IBM Corporation; Allstate Insurance Company
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (2002 - 2007)
Vice Chairman (2000 - 2002)
Non-profit boards: Chairman of the board of trustees of The Annie E. Casey Foundation
UPS Board of Directors (1998 - 2014)
Qualifications: Mr. Eskew has CEO experience with UPS, where he established a record of success in managing complex worldwide operations, strategic planning, and building a strong consumer-brand focus. He is an audit committee financial expert, based on his CEO experience and his service on other U.S. company audit committees. He has extensive corporate governance experience through his service on the boards of other companies.

Karen N. Horn, Ph.D., Age 72, director since 1987
Board Committees: Compensation (chair); Directors and Corporate Governance
Career HighlightsOther Board Service
Brock Capital Group, a provider of financial advising and consulting services
Public boards: Simon Property Group, Inc.; Norfolk Southern Corporation
Senior Managing Director (2004 - present)
Prior public boards: T. Rowe Price Mutual Funds
President, Private Client Services and Managing Director (1999 - 2003)
Non-profit boards: The National Bureau of Economic Research; The National Association of Corporate Directors
Bank One, Cleveland, N.A.
Chairman and chief executive officer (1982 - 1987)
Qualifications: Ms. Horn is a former CEO with extensive experience in various segments of the financial industry, including banking and financial services. Through her for-profit and her public-private partnership work, she has significant experience in international economics and finance. Ms. Horn has extensive corporate governance experience through service on other public company boards in a variety of industries.

William G. Kaelin, Jr., M.D.,age 58, director since 2012
Board Committees: Finance; Science and Technology (chair)
Career HighlightsIndustry Memberships
Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer CenterInstitute of Medicine; National Academy of Sciences; Association of American Physicians; American Society of Clinical Investigation
Professor of Medicine (2002 - present)
Associate director, Basic Science (2009 - present)Honors
Canada Gairdner International Award
Lefoulon-Delalande Prize - Institute of France
Qualifications: Dr. Kaelin is a prominent medical researcher and academician. He has extensive experience at Harvard Medical School, a major medical institution, as well as special expertise in oncology—a key component of Lilly's business. He also has deep expertise in basic science, including mechanisms of drug action, and experience with pharmaceutical discovery research.

P11



John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D., age 62, director since 2005
Board Committees: none
Career HighlightsIndustry Memberships
Eli Lilly and CompanyAmerican Chemical Society; Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA); U.S. - Japan Business Council, chairman
President and CEO (2008 - present)
Chairman of the Board (2009 - present)
HonorsOther Board Service
Honorary doctorates: Marian University, University of Indianapolis, the National University of Ireland, Indiana University, and Franklin College
Public boards: Ford Motor Company; Nike, Inc.
Non-profit boards: United Way Worldwide, chairman; Chemical Heritage Foundation; and the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership
Qualifications: Dr. Lechleiter is our chairman, president, and chief executive officer. A Ph.D. chemist by training, Dr. Lechleiter has over 36 years of experience with the company in a variety of roles of increasing responsibility in research and development, pharmaceutical operations, and corporate administration. As a result, he has a sound understanding of pharmaceutical research and development, sales and marketing, and manufacturing. He also has significant corporate governance experience through his service on other public company boards.

Marschall S. Runge, M.D., Ph.D., age 61, director since 2013
Board Committees: Science and Technology; Public Policy and Compliance
Career HighlightsIndustry Memberships
University of MichiganExperimental Cardiovascular Sciences Study Section of the National Institutes of Health
CEO, University of Michigan Health System (2015 - present)
Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs (2015 - present)
Dean, Medical School (2015 - present)
University of North Carolina, School of Medicine
Executive Dean (2010 - 2015); Chair of the Department of Medicine (2000 - 2015)
Principal Investigator and Director of the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute
Qualifications: Dr. Runge brings the unique perspective of a practicing physician who has a broad background in health care, clinical research, and academia. He has extensive experience as a practicing cardiologist, and has deep expertise in biomedical research and clinical trial design.
Class of 2018
The following four directors are serving terms that will expire in May 2018.
Katherine Baicker, Ph.D., age 44, director since 2011
Board Committees: Audit; Public Policy and Compliance
Career HighlightsIndustry Memberships
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and ManagementCommissioner of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
Professor of health economics (2007 - present)Chair of the Group Insurance Commission of Massachusetts
C. Boyden Gray Professor and Acting Chair, department of Health Policy and Management (2014 - 2016)Panel of Health Advisers to the Congressional Budget Office
Council of Economic Advisers, Executive Office of the PresidentEditorial boards of Health Affairs and the Journal of Health Economics
Member (2005 - 2007)Member of the Institute of Medicine
Senior Economist (2001 - 2002)
Qualifications: Dr. Baicker is a leading researcher in the fields of health economics, public economics, and labor economics. As a valued adviser to numerous health care-related commissions and committees, her expertise in health care policy and health care delivery is recognized in both academia and government.

P12



J. Erik Fyrwald, age 56, director since 2005
Board Committees: Public Policy and Compliance (chair); Science and Technology
Career Highlights
E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, a global chemical company
Univar, Inc.,a leading distributor of industrial and specialty chemicals and provider of related services
Group Vice President, agriculture and nutrition (2003 - 2008)
President and Chief Executive Officer (2012 - present)
Nalco Company, a provider of integrated water treatment and process improvement services, chemicals and equipment programs for industrial and institutional applications
Other Board Service
Private boards: Amsted Industries
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (2008 - 2011)
Non-profit boards: Society of Chemical Industry; Amsted Industries; The Chicago Public Education Fund; Field Museum of Chicago, Trustee
Ecolab, a leading cleaning and sanitization and water treatment products and services company
President (2012)
Qualifications: Mr. Fyrwald has a strong record of operational and strategic leadership in three complex worldwide businesses with a focus on technology and innovation. He is an engineer by training and has significant CEO experience with Univar and Nalco.

Ellen R. Marram, age 69, director since 2002, lead director since 2012
Board Committees: Compensation; Directors and Corporate Governance (chair)
Career HighlightsOther Board Service
The Barnegat Group LLC, provider of business advisory services • President (2006 - present)
Public boards: Ford Motor Company, The New York Times Company
North Castle Partners, LLC
Prior public boards: Cadbury plc
Managing Director (2000 - 2006)
Private boards: Newman's Own, Inc.
Tropicana Beverage Group
Non-profit boards: Wellesley College; Institute for the Future; New York-Presbyterian Hospital; Lincoln Center Theater; and Families and Work Institute
President and Chief Executive Officer (1993 - 1998)
Nabisco Biscuit Company, a unit of Nabisco, Inc.
President and Chief Executive Officer (1988 - 1993)
Qualifications: Ms. Marram is a former CEO with a strong marketing and consumer-brand background. Through her nonprofit and private company activities, she has a special focus and expertise in wellness and consumer health. Ms. Marram has extensive corporate governance experience through service on other public company boards in a variety of industries.

Jackson P. Tai, age 65, director since 2013
Board Committees: Audit; Finance
Career HighlightsOther Board Service
DBS Group Holdings and DBS Bank (formerly the Development Bank of Singapore), one of the largest financial services groups in Asia
Public boards: The Bank of China Limited, MasterCard Incorporated, Royal Philips NV
Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (2002-2007)
Prior boards: Singapore Airlines; NYSE Euronext; ING Groep NV; CapitaLand (Singapore); DBS Group Holdings and DBS Bank
President and Chief Operating Officer (2001-2002)
J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated, a leading global financial institution
25 year career in investment banking, including senior management responsibilities in New York, Tokyo and San Francisco
Qualifications:  Mr. Tai is a former CEO with extensive experience in international business and finance, and is an audit committee financial expert. He has deep expertise in the Asia-Pacific region, a key growth market for Lilly. He also has broad corporate governance experience from his service on public company boards in the U.S., Europe, and Asia.

Director Qualifications and Nomination Process

Director Qualifications
The Board assesses Board candidates by considering the following:


P13



Experience: Our directors are responsible for overseeing the company's business consistent with their fiduciary duties. This significant responsibility requires highly skilled individuals with various qualities, attributes, and professional experience. The Board is well-rounded, with a balance of relevant perspectives and experience, as illustrated in the following charts:
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.CEO Experience:Douglas R. OberhelmanEllen R. Marram8Sir Winfried Bischoff
Financial Expertise:William G. Kaelin, Jr., M.D.Kathi P. Seifert7Ralph Alvarez
Relevant Scientific/Academic Expertise:6
Healthcare Experience:4
Operational/Strategic Expertise:7
International Experience:7
Marketing and Sales Expertise:5
Gender/Ethnic Diversity:8

As the following chart demonstrates, our director composition also reflects a mix of tenure on the Board, which provides an effective balance of historical perspective and an understanding of the evolution of our business with fresh perspectives and insights.

Companies, Inc., and Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc. Mr. Alvarez also serves on the President's Council, the School of Business Administration Board of Overseers, and the International Advisory Board of the University of Miami. He was previously a member of the boards of McDonald's Corporation and KeyCorp.
2 Years Tenure or Less:1
3-5 Years:5
6-10 Years:3
More than 10 Years:4

Qualifications:Diversity: Through his senior executive positions at Skylark Co., Ltd.The Board strives to achieve diversity in the broadest sense, including persons diverse in geography, gender, ethnicity, and McDonald’s Corporation,experiences. Although the Board does not establish specific diversity goals or have a stand-alone diversity policy, the Board's overall diversity is an important consideration in the director selection and nomination process. The Directors and Corporate Governance Committee assesses the effectiveness of board diversity efforts in connection with the annual nomination process as well as with other global restaurant businesses, Mr. Alvarez has extensive experience in consumer marketing, global operations, international business,new director searches. The company's fourteen directors range in age from 44 to 72, and strategic planning. His international experience includes a special focus on emerging markets.include four women and four ethnically diverse members.

Board committees:Character: finance; public policyBoard members should possess the personal attributes necessary to be an effective director, including unquestioned integrity, sound judgment, independence, a collaborative spirit, and compliance; sciencecommitment to the company, our shareholders, and technologyother constituencies.

Sir Winfried Bischoff,Age 71, Directorsince 2000 Nomination Process
Chairman, Lloyds Banking Group plcThe Board delegates the director screening process to the Directors and Corporate Governance Committee, which receives input from other Board members. Potential directors are identified from several sources, including executive search firms retained by the committee, incumbent directors, management, and shareholders.
Sir Winfried Bischoff has been chairman
The committee employs the same process for evaluating all candidates, including those submitted by shareholders. The committee initially evaluates a candidate based on publicly available information and any additional information supplied by the party recommending the candidate. If the candidate appears to satisfy the selection criteria and the committee’s initial evaluation is favorable, the committee, assisted by management or the search firm, gathers additional data on the candidate’s qualifications, availability, probable level of interest, and any potential conflicts of interest. If the committee’s subsequent evaluation continues to be favorable, the candidate is contacted by the Chairman of the boardBoard and one or more of Lloyds Banking Group plc since September 2009. He served as chairmanthe independent directors, including the lead director, for direct discussions to determine the mutual levels of Citigroup Inc. from December 2007 until February 2009 and as interim chief executive officer forinterest in pursuing the candidacy. If these discussions are favorable, the committee makes a portion of 2007. He served as chairman of Citigroup Europe from 2000final recommendation to 2009. From 1995 to 2000, he was chairman of Schroders plc. He joined the Schroder Group in 1966 and held a number of positions
there, including chairman of J. Henry Schroder & Co.

and group chief executive of Schroders plc. He is also a
director of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. He previously served on the boards of Citigroup Inc.,
Prudential plc, Land Securities plc, and Akbank T.A.S.

Qualifications:Sir Winfried Bischoff has a distinguished career in banking and finance, including commercial banking, corporate finance, and investment banking. He has CEO experience both in Europe and the U.S. He is a globalist, with particular expertise in European matters but with extensive experience overseeing worldwide operations. He has broad corporate governance experience from his service on public company boards in the U.S., UK, and other European and Asian countries.

Board committees:directors and corporate governance; finance (chair)

R. David Hoover,Age 67, Director since 2009
Chairman, Ball Corporation
Mr. Hoover is chairman of Ball Corporation, which provides metal packaging for beverages, foods and household products, as well as aerospace and other technologies and services to commercial and governmental customers. Mr. Hoover joined Ball Corporation in 1970 and has held a variety of leadership roles throughout his career, including vice president and treasurer; executive vice president and chief financial officer; vice chairman, president, and chief operating


5P14



the Board to nominate the candidate for election by the shareholders (or to select the candidate to fill a vacancy, as applicable).

officer;The Directors and chairman, president, and chief executive officer. He is a memberCorporate Governance Committee performs periodic assessments of the boards of Ball Corporation, Energizer Holdings, Inc.,overall composition and Steelcase, Inc. Mr. Hoover is also a director of Boulder Community Hospital, Children's Hospital Colorado, and a memberskills of the Colorado Forum,Board in order to ensure that the Board and is a membermanagement are actively engaged in succession planning for directors, and past chairthat our Board reflects the appropriate viewpoints, diversity, and expertise necessary to support our complex and evolving business. The results of this assessment inform the board of trustees of DePauw UniversityBoard's recommendations on nominations for directors at the annual meeting each year and help provide us with insight on the Indiana University Kelley Schooltypes of Business Dean's Council. Mr. Hoover previously servedexperiences, skills, and other characteristics we should be seeking for future director candidates. Based on this assessment, the boards of Irwin Financial Corporation and Qwest International, Inc.committee has recommended that the directors in the 2016 class who are standing for election be elected at the 2016 annual meeting.

Qualifications:Mr. Hoover has extensive CEO experience at Ball Corporation, with a strong record of leadership in operations and strategy. He is an audit committee financial expert as a result of his experience as CEO and CFO of Ball. He also has extensive corporate governance experience through his service on other public company boards.Director Compensation

Board committees: audit; compensation

Franklyn G. Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D.,Age 68, Director since 1995
Edmond and Marion Guggenheim Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Professor of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Mayo Medical School; and Director Emeritus, Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine
Dr. Prendergast is the Edmond and Marion Guggenheim Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Professor of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics at Mayo Medical School and the director emeritus of the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine. He is an emeritus member of the Mayo Clinic board of governors and board of trustees and has held severalteaching positions at the Mayo Medical School since 1975.

Qualifications:Dr. Prendergast is a prominent medical clinician, researcher, and academician. He has extensive experience in senior-most administration at Mayo Clinic, a major medical institution, and as director of its renowned cancer center. He has special expertise in two critical areas for Lilly—oncology and personalized medicine. As a medical doctor, he brings an important practicing-physician perspective to the board’s deliberations.

Board committees: public policy and compliance; science and technology

Kathi P. Seifert,Age 63, Director since 1995
Retired Executive Vice President, Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Ms. Seifert served as executive vice president for Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a global consumer products company, until June 2004. She joined
Kimberly-Clark in 1978 and served in several capacities in connection with both the domestic and international consumer-products businesses. Prior to joining Kimberly-Clark, Ms. Seifert held management positions at Procter & Gamble, Beatrice Foods, and Fort Howard Paper Company. She is chairman of Katapult, LLC, a provider of pro bono mentoring and consulting services to other nonprofits. Ms. Seifert serves on the boards of Supervalu Inc.; Revlon Consumer Products Corporation; Lexmark International, Inc.; Appleton Papers Inc.; Fox Cities Performing Arts Center; and the Community Foundation for the Fox Valley Region.

Qualifications:Ms. Seifert is a retired senior executive of Kimberly-Clark. She has strong expertise in consumer marketing and brand management, having led sales and marketing for several worldwide brands, with a special focus on consumer health. She has extensive corporate governance experience through her other board positions.

Board committees:audit; compensation

Class of 2014
The following five directors will continue in office until 2014.

Michael L. Eskew,Age 63, Director since 2008
Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, United Parcel Service, Inc.
Mr. Eskew served as chairman and chief executive officer of United Parcel Service, Inc., from January 2002 until December 2007. He has served on the UPS board of directors since 1998. Mr. Eskew began his UPS career in 1972 as an industrial engineering manager and held various positions of increasing responsibility, including time with UPS's operations in Germany and with UPS Airlines. In 1993, Mr. Eskew was named corporate vice president for industrial engineering. Two years later he became group vice president for engineering. In 1998, he was elected to the UPS board of directors. In 1999, Mr. Eskew was named executive vice president and a year later was given the additional title of vice chairman. He serves as chairman of the board of trustees of The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Mr. Eskew also serves on the boards of 3M Corporation and IBM Corporation.

Qualifications:Mr. Eskew has CEO experience with UPS, where he established a record of success in managing complex worldwide operations, strategic planning, and building a strong consumer-brand focus. He is an audit committee financial expert, based on his CEO experience and his service on other U.S. company audit committees. He has extensive corporate governance experience through his service on the boards of other companies.

Board committees:audit (chair); finance


6



Alfred G. Gilman, M.D., Ph.D., Age 71, Director since 1995
Regental Professor of Pharmacology Emeritus, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
Dr. Gilman is the regental professor of pharmacology emeritus at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. Dr. Gilman was on the faculty of the University of Virginia School of Medicine from1971 to 1981 and was named a professor of pharmacology there in 1977. He previously served as executive vice president for academic affairs and provost of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, dean of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, and professor of pharmacology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He held the Raymond and Ellen Willie Distinguished Chair of Molecular Neuropharmacology, the Nadine and Tom Craddick Distinguished Chair in Medical Science, and the Atticus James Gill, M.D., Chair in Medical Science at the university and was named a regental professor in 1995. Between 2009 and 2012, Dr. Gilman was the chief scientific officer of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. He is a director of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Gilman was a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1994.

Qualifications:Dr. Gilman is a Nobel Prize-winning pharmacologist, researcher, and professor. He has deep expertise in basic science, including mechanisms of drug action, and experience with pharmaceutical discovery research. As the former dean of a major medical school, he brings to the board important perspectives of both the academic and practicing medical communities.

Board committees:public policy and compliance; science and technology (chair)

Karen N. Horn, Ph.D.,Age 69, Director since 1987
Retired President, Private Client Services; Managing Director, Marsh, Inc.
Ms. Horn served as president of private client services and managing director of Marsh, Inc., a global provider of risk and insurance services, from 1999 until her retirement in 2003. Prior to joining Marsh, she was senior managing director and head of international private banking at Bankers Trust Company, chairman and chief executive officer of Bank One, Cleveland, N.A., president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, treasurer of Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, and vice president of First National Bank of Boston. Ms. Horn serves as director of T. Rowe Price Mutual Funds, Simon Property Group, Inc., and Norfolk Southern Corporation. She previously served on the boards of Fannie Mae and Georgia-Pacific Corporation. Ms. Horn has been senior managing director of Brock Capital Group, a provider of financial advising and consulting services, since 2004.
Qualifications: Ms. Horn is a former CEO with extensive experience in various segments of the financial industry, including banking and financial services. Through her for-profit and her public-private partnership work, she has significant experience in international economics and finance. Ms. Horn has extensive corporate governance experience through service on other public company boards in a variety of industries.

Board committees:compensation (chair); directors and corporate governance

William G. Kaelin, Jr., M.D.,Age 55, Director since 2012
Professor, Department of Medicine and Associate Director, Basic Science; Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center
Dr. Kaelin, who is currently serving under interim election, joined the board in June 2012 and was referred to the directors and corporate governance committee by an incumbent independent director. Dr. Kaelin is a professor in the Department of Medicine at the
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and at the Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, where he began his career as an independent investigator in 1992. He currently serves as associate director, Basic Science, for the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. Dr. Kaelin is a prominent member of themedical research community and has received broad recognition forhiswork in oncology research, including the Canada Gairdner International Award and the Lefoulon-Delalande Prize from the Institute of France. Dr. Kaelin is a member of the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Association of American Physicians.

Qualifications:Dr. Kaelin is a prominent medical researcher and academician. He has extensive experience at Harvard Medical School, a major medical institution, as well as special expertise in oncology—a key component of Lilly's business. He also has deep expertise in basic science, including mechanisms of drug action, and experience with pharmaceutical discovery research.

Board Committees:finance; science and technology

John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.,Age 59, Director since 2005
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
Dr. Lechleiter has served as president and chief executive officer of Lilly since April 1, 2008. He became the chairman of the board of directors on January 1, 2009. He began work at Lilly in 1979 as a senior organic chemist in process research and development. Prior to joining Lilly, Dr. Lechleiter attended Xavier University (Cincinnati, Ohio), where he earned a bachelor of science degree in chemistry in 1975, and Harvard University, where he earned master's and doctoral degrees in organic chemistry in 1980. Dr. Lechleiter has received honorary doctorates from Marian University


7



(Indianapolis, Indiana), the University of Indianapolis, and the National University of Ireland. Dr. Lechleiter is a member of the American Chemical Society and Business Roundtable. Dr. Lechleiter serves as chairman of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), as president of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), and on the boards of United Way Worldwide, Xavier University, the Life Sciences Foundation, and the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership. He also serves on the board of Nike, Inc.

Qualifications: Dr. Lechleiter is our chairman, president, and chief executive officer. A Ph.D. chemist,
Dr. Lechleiter has over 30 years of experience with the company in a variety of roles of increasing responsibility in research and development, sales and marketing, and corporate administration. As a result, he has a deep understanding of pharmaceutical research and development, sales and marketing, strategy, and operations. He also has significant corporate governance experience through service on other public company boards.

Board committees:none

Class of 2015
The following four directors will continue in office until 2015.

Katherine Baicker, Ph.D., Age 41, Director since 2011
Professor of Health Economics at the Harvard University School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management; and Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research
Dr. Baicker has been a professor of health economics at the Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, since 2007. From 2005 to 2007, she served as a Senate-confirmed member of the Council of Economic Advisers. From 1998 to 2005,
Dr. Baicker was assistant professor and associate professor ofeconomics at Dartmouth College. In 2001 and 2002 she also served as an economist to the Council ofEconomic Advisers, Executive Office of the President, and in 2003 was a visiting assistant professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.
Dr. Baicker is a commissioner of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and serves on the Panel of Health Advisers to the Congressional Budget Office. She is a member of the editorial boards of Health Affairs and the Journal of Health Economics, chair of the board of directors of AcademyHealth, editor of the Forum for Health Economics and Policy, and associate editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives. She is an elected member of the Institute of Medicine.

Qualifications:Dr. Baicker is a leading researcher in the fields of health economics, public economics, and labor
economics. As a valued advisor to numerous health care-related commissions and committees, her expertise in health care policy and health care delivery is recognized by both academia and government.

Board committees:audit, public policy and compliance

J. Erik Fyrwald, Age 53, Director since 2005
President and Chief Executive Officer, Univar, Inc.
J. Erik Fyrwald joined Univar Inc., a leading distributor of industrial and specialty chemicals and provider of related services, in May 2012 as its president and chief executive officer. In 2008, following a 27-year career at E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), he joined Nalco Company, serving as chairman and chief executive officer until 2011, when Nalco merged with Ecolab Inc. Following the merger, Mr. Fyrwald served as president of Ecolab. From 2003 to 2008, Mr. Fyrwald served as group vice president of the agriculture and nutrition division at DuPont. From 2000 until 2003, he was vice president and general manager of DuPont's nutrition and health business. At DuPont, he held a broad variety of assignments in a number of divisions covering many industries. He has worked in several locations throughout North America and Asia.
Mr. Fyrwald serves as a director of the Society of Chemical Industry, Amsted Industries, and the Chicago Public Education Fund, and he is a trustee of the Field Museum of Chicago.

Qualifications:Mr. Fyrwald has a strong record of operational and strategy leadership in two complex worldwide businesses with a focus on technology and innovation. An engineer by training, he has extensive senior executive experience at DuPont, a multinational chemical company, where he led the agriculture and nutrition division, which used chemical and biotechnology solutions to enhance plant health. He also has experience serving as the CEO of Univar and Nalco.

Board committees:public policy and compliance (chair); science and technology

Ellen R. Marram, Age 66, Director since 2002
President, The Barnegat Group LLC
Ms. Marram began serving as the board's lead director in April 2012. Ms. Marram is the president of The Barnegat Group LLC, a firm that provides business advisory services. She was a managing director at North Castle Partners, LLC from 2000 to 2005 and served as an advisor to the firm from 2006 to 2010. From 1993 to 1998, Ms. Marram was president and chief executive officer of Pepsico's Tropicana and the Tropicana Beverage Group. From 1988 to 1993, she was president and chief executive officer of the Nabisco Biscuit Company, the largest operating unit of Nabisco, Inc.; from 1987 to 1988, she was president of Nabisco's grocery division; and from 1970 to 1986, she held a


8



series of marketing positions at Nabisco/Standard Brands, Johnson & Johnson, and Lever Brothers.
Ms. Marram is a member of the board of directors of Ford Motor Company and The New York Times Company, as well as several private companies. She previously served on the board of Cadbury plc. She also serves on the boards of Wellesley College, Institute for the Future, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Lincoln Center Theater, and Families and Work Institute.

Qualifications:Ms. Marram is a former CEO with a strong marketing and consumer-brand background. Through her nonprofit and private company activities, she has a special focus and expertise in wellness and consumer health. Ms. Marram has extensive corporate governance experience through service on other public company boards in a variety of industries.

Board committees:compensation; directors and corporate governance (chair)

Douglas R. Oberhelman,Age 60, Director since 2008
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Caterpillar Inc.
Mr. Oberhelman has been chairman of the board of Caterpillar Inc. since November 2010 and chief executive officer since July 2010. He previously served as vice chairman and chief executive officer-elect of Caterpillar. He joined Caterpillar in 1975 and has held a variety of positions, including senior finance representative based in South America for Caterpillar Americas Co., regional finance manager and district
manager for the company's North American commercial division, and managing director and vice general manager for strategic planning at Caterpillar Japan Ltd. Mr. Oberhelman was elected a vice president in 1995, serving as Caterpillar's chief financial officer from 1995 to November 1998. In 1998, he became vice president with responsibility for the engine products division and he was elected a group president and member of Caterpillar's executive office in 2002.
Mr. Oberhelman serves on the boards of Caterpillar, the Wetlands America Trust, and is chairman of the National Association of Manufacturers. He previously served on the board of Ameren Corporation. He is a memberof the Executive Committee of the Business Roundtable and a member of the Business Council.

Qualifications: Mr. Oberhelman has a strong strategic and operational background as a senior executive (and currently as chairman and CEO) of Caterpillar, a leading manufacturing company with worldwide operations and a special focus on emerging markets. He is an audit committee financial expert as a result of his prior experience as CFO of Caterpillar and as a member and chairman of the audit committee of another U.S. public company.

Board committees:audit; finance
Director Compensation

Director compensation is reviewed and approved annually by the board,Board, on the recommendation of the directorsDirectors and corporate governance committee.Corporate Governance Committee. Directors who are employees receive no additional compensation for serving on the board.Board.

Cash Compensation
In 2012, the company provided2015, nonemployee directors withreceived an annual retainer of $100,000$110,000 (payable in monthly installments). In addition, certain boardBoard roles receivereceived additional annual retainers:
$3,000 for audit committee and science and technology committee members
$12,000 for committeeLead director: $30,000

Committee chairs: $12,000 ($18,000 for audit committee chair andAudit Committee chair; $15,000 for scienceScience and technology committeeTechnology Committee chair)
$30,000 for
Audit Committee/Science and Technology Committee members (including the lead director.chair): $6,000

All other Committee members (including the chairs):$3,000

Directors are reimbursed for customary and usual travel expenses. Directors may also receive additional retainer amountscash compensation for serving on ad hoc committees that may be assembled from time-to-time.

Stock Compensation
StockDirectors should hold meaningful equity ownership positions in the company; accordingly, a significant portion of director compensation for nonemployeeis in the form of Lilly stock. Directors are required to hold Lilly stock, directly or through company plans, valued at not less than five times their annual board retainer; new directors consistsare allowed five years to reach this ownership level. All directors are in compliance with these guidelines.

Nonemployee directors received $145,000 of shares of company stock equaling $145,000,compensation (but no more than 7,500 shares), deposited annually in a deferred stock account in the Lilly Directors’ Deferral Plan (as described below), payable after their service on the boardBoard has ended.

Lilly Directors’ Deferral Plan
This: In addition to stock compensation, this plan allows nonemployee directors to defer receipt of all or part of their cash compensation until after their service on the boardBoard has ended. Each director can choose to invest the funds in one or both of the following two accounts:

Deferred Stock AccountAccount.. This account allows the director, in effect, to invest his or her deferred cash compensation in company stock. In addition, the annual stock compensation award of shares to each directoras noted above (3,083 shares in 2012) is credited to this account on a pre-set annual date.account. The number of shares credited is calculated by dividing the $145,000 annual compensation figure by the closing stock price on thata pre-set annual date. Funds in this account are credited as hypothetical shares of company stock based on the market price of the stock at the time the compensation would otherwise have been earned. Hypothetical dividends are “reinvested” in additional shares based on the market price of the stock on the date dividends are paid. Actual shares are issued or transferred after the director ends his or her service on the board.Board.

P15




Deferred Compensation Account. Funds in this account earn interest each year at a rate of 120 percent of the applicable federal long-term rate, compounded monthly, as established the


9



preceding December by the U.S. Treasury Department under Section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Internal Revenue Code). The aggregate amount of interest that accrued in 20122015 for the participating directors was $138,129,$171,916, at a rate of 3.33.2 percent. The rate for 20132016 is 2.93.1 percent.

Both accounts may be paid in a lump sum or in annual installments for up to 10 years, beginning the second January following the director’s departure from board service. Amounts in the deferred stock account are paid in shares of company stock.

2015 Compensation for Nonemployee Directors

Name1
Fees Earned
or Paid in Cash ($)
Stock Awards ($)2
All Other
Compensation
and Payments ($)
3
Total ($)4
Mr. Alvarez$119,000 $145,000 $0 $264,000 
Dr. Baicker$119,000 $145,000 $0 $264,000 
Mr. Eskew$140,000 $145,000 $10,000 $295,000 
Mr. Fyrwald$125,000 $145,000 $12,500 $282,500 
Mr. Hoover$128,000 $145,000 $30,000 $303,000 
Ms. Horn$128,000 $145,000 $3,050 $276,050 
Dr. Kaelin$134,000 $145,000 $0 $279,000 
Ms. Marram$158,000 $145,000 $22,000 $325,000 
Mr. Douglas Oberhelman5
$49,583 $60,417 $30,000 $140,000 
Dr. Prendergast$119,000 $145,000 $0 $264,000 
Dr. Runge$129,500 $145,000 $0 $274,500 
Ms. Seifert$119,000 $145,000 $7,050 $271,050 
Mr. Tai$129,500 $145,000 $30,000 $304,500 

Director Compensation1Mr. Luciano is not included in this chart as he became a board member effective February 2016.
In 2012, we provided
2 Each nonemployee director received an award of stock valued at $145,000 (approximately 1,785 shares), except Mr. Oberhelman, who retired from the following compensation to directors whoboard in May 2015 and received a pro-rated award for a partial year of service. This stock award and all prior stock awards are fully vested; however, the shares are not employees:
NameFees Earned
or Paid in Cash ($)
Stock Awards ($) 1
All Other
Compensation and Payments ($)
 2
Total ($) 3
Mr. Alvarez$106,000 $145,000 $0 $251,000 
Dr. Baicker$102,250 $145,000 $0 $247,250 
Sir Winfried Bischoff$112,000 $145,000 $0 $257,000 
Mr. Eskew$121,000 $145,000 $1,500 $267,500 
Mr. Fyrwald$112,000 $145,000 $35,000 $292,000 
Dr. Gilman$118,000 $145,000 $14,500 $277,500 
Mr. Hoover$106,000 $145,000 $30,000 $281,000 
Ms. Horn$119,500 $145,000 $5,250 $269,750 
Dr. Kaelin$60,083 $84,583 $11,200 $155,867 
Ms. Marram$134,500 $145,000 $30,000 $309,500 
Mr. Oberhelman$106,000 $145,000 $33,750 $284,750 
Dr. Prendergast$103,000 $145,000 $0 $248,000 
Ms. Seifert$103,000 $145,000 $13,650 $261,650 
issued until the director ends his or her service on the Board, as described above under “Lilly Directors’ Deferral Plan.” The column shows the grant date fair value for each director’s stock award. Aggregate outstanding stock awards are shown in the “Common Stock Ownership by Directors and Executive Officers” table in the “Stock Units Not Distributable Within 60 Days” column.

13 
Each nonemployee director received an award of stock valued at $145,000 (3,083 shares), except Dr. Kaelin, who received shares proportionately for a partial year of service. This stock award and all prior stock awards are fully vested in that they are not subject to forfeiture; however, the shares are not issued until the director ends his or her service on the board, as described above under “Lilly Directors’ Deferral Plan.” The column shows the grant date fair value for each director’s stock award. Aggregate outstanding stock awards are shown in the “Common Stock Ownership by Directors and Executive Officers” table in the “Directors’ Deferral Plan Shares” column. Aggregate outstanding stock options as of December 31, 2012 are shown in the table below. Nonemployee directors received no stock options in 2012. The company discontinued granting stock options to nonemployee directors in 2005. A discussion of methodology used in calculating the award values can be found above under the heading "Lilly Directors' Deferral Plan."
NameOutstanding Stock Options (Exercisable)Weighted Average Exercise Price
Sir Winfried Bischoff5,600$65.48
Dr. Gilman5,600$65.48
Ms. Horn5,600$65.48
Ms. Marram5,600$65.48
Dr. Prendergast5,600$65.48
Ms. Seifert5,600$65.48
2
This column consists of amounts donated by the Eli Lilly and Company Foundation, Inc. ("Foundation") under its matching gift program, which is generally available to U.S. employees as well as the outsidenon-employee directors. Under this program, the foundationFoundation matched 100 percent of charitable donations over $25 made to eligible charities, up to a maximum of $30,000 per year for each individual. The foundationFoundation matched these donations via payments made directly to the recipient charity.The amountsamount for Mr. Fyrwald and Mr. Oberhelman includeMs. Horn includes matching contributions for donations made at the end of 2011 (Mr. Fyrwald – $15,000; Mr. Oberhelman – $5,000)2014 ($1,700), for which the matching contribution was not paid until 2012.
2015.

34 
Directors do not participate in a company pension plan or non-equity incentive plan.

5 Mr. Olberhelman's term expired in May 2015, and he chose not to seek reelection.

2016 Director Compensation
In 2016, nonemployee directors will receive $160,000 in stock compensation. This is the first increase to nonemployee directors' stock compensation in over ten years. All other elements of director compensation remain the same as in 2015.

10P16




Director Independence
Highlights of the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines
The following summary provides highlights of the company’s guidelines established by the board of directors. A complete copy of the corporate governance guidelines is available online at http://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfm or upon request to the company’s corporate secretary.
I. Role of the Board
The directors are elected by the shareholders to oversee the actions and results of the company’s management. Their responsibilities include:
providing general oversight of the business
approving corporate strategy
approving major management initiatives
providing oversight of legal and ethical conduct
overseeing the company’s management of significant business risks
selecting, compensating, and evaluating directors
evaluating board processes and performance
selecting, compensating, evaluating, and, when necessary, replacing the chief executive officer, and compensating other senior executives
ensuring that an effective succession plan is in place for all senior executives.
II. Composition of the Board
Mix of Independent Directors and Officer-Directors
There should always be a substantial majority (75 percent or more) of independent directors. The chief executive officer should be a board member. Other officers may, from time to time, be board members, but no officer other than the chief executive officer should expect to be elected to the board by virtue of his or her position in the company.
Selection of Director Candidates
The board selects candidates for board membership and establishes the criteria to be used in identifying potential candidates. The board delegates the screening process to the directors and corporate governance committee.
For more information on the director nomination process, including the current selection criteria, see “Directors and Corporate Governance Committee Matters” below.
Independence Determinations
The board annually determines the independence of directors based on a review by the directorsDirectors and
corporate governance committee.Corporate Governance Committee. No director is considered independent unless the boardBoard has determined that he or she has no material relationship with the company, either directly or as a partner, significant shareholder, or officer of an organization that has a material relationship with the company. Material
relationships can include commercial, industrial,banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable, and familial relationships, among others. To evaluate the
materiality of any such relationship, the boardBoard has adopted categorical independence standards consistent with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) listing standards, except that the “look-back period” for determining whether a director’s prior relationship(s) with the company impairs independence is extended from three to four years.
Specifically, aThe company's process for determining director independence is not considered independent if (i)set forth in our Standards for Director Independence, which can be found on our website at http://www.lilly.com/about/corporate-governance/Pages/guidelines.aspx, along with our Corporate Governance Guidelines.
On the director or an immediate family member is a current partnerrecommendation of the company’s independent auditor (currently Ernst & Young LLP); (ii)Directors and Corporate Governance Committee, the director is a current employee of such firm; (iii) the director has an immediate family member who is a current employee of such firm and who participates in the firm’s audit, assurance, or tax compliance (but not tax planning) practice; or (iv) the director or an immediate family member was within the last four years (but is no longer) a partner or employee of such firm and personally worked on our audit within that time.
In addition, a director is not considered independent if any of the following relationships existed within the previous four years:
A director who is an employee of the company, or whose immediate family member is an executive officer of the company. Temporary service by an independent director as interim chairman or chief executive officer will not disqualify the director from being independent following completion of that service.
A director who receives any direct compensation from the company other than the director’s normal director compensation, or whose immediate family member receives more than $120,000 per year in direct compensation from the company other than for service as a nonexecutive employee.
A director who is employed (or whose immediate family member is currently employed as an executive officer) by another company where any Lilly executive officer serves on the compensation committee of that company’s board.
A director who is currently employed by, who is a 10 percent shareholder of, or whose immediate family member is currently employed as an executive officer of a company that makes payments to or receives payments from Lilly for property or services that exceed the greater of $1 million or 2 percent of that company’s consolidated gross revenue in a single fiscal year.
A director who is a current executive officer of a nonprofit organization that receives grants or contributions from the company exceeding the greater of $1 million or 2 percent of that organization’s consolidated gross revenue in a single fiscal year.


11



Members of board committees must meet all applicable independence tests of the NYSE, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The directors and corporate governance committeeBoard determined that all 13 current nonemployee directors, listed belowas well as Douglas Oberhelman, who served for part of 2015, are independent, and that the members of each committee also meet theour independence standards referenced above.standards. The directors and corporate governance committee recommended this conclusion to the board and explained the basis for its decision, and this conclusion was adopted by the board. This committee and the boardBoard determined that none of the 13nonemployee directors has had during the last four years (i) any of the relationships listedreferenced above or (ii) any other material relationship with the company that would compromise
his or her independence. In reaching thisconclusion, the committee reviewed directors’ responses to a questionnaire asking about their relationships with the company and other potential conflicts of interest, as well as information provided by management related to transactions, relationships, or arrangements between the company and the directors or parties related to the directors. The table belowthat follows includes a description of categories or types of transactions, relationships, or arrangements considered by the boardBoard considered in reaching its determinations.
DirectorOrganizationType of OrganizationDirector Relationship to OrganizationPrimary Type of Transaction/ Relationship/ Arrangement between Lilly and Organization2015 Aggregate Percentage of Organization's Revenue
Dr. BaickerHarvard UniversityEducational InstitutionEmployeeResearch grantsLess than 0.1 percent
Mr. FyrwaldUnivar, Inc.For-profit CorporationExecutive OfficerPurchases of productsLess than 0.1 percent
Dr. KaelinHarvard UniversityEducational InstitutionEmployeeResearch grantsLess than 0.1 percent
Brigham and Women's HospitalHealth Care InstitutionEmployeeResearch grantsLess than 0.1 percent
Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteHealth Care InstitutionEmployeeResearch grantsLess than 0.1 percent
Mr. LucianoArcher Daniels MidlandFor-profit CorporationExecutive OfficerPurchases of productsLess than 0.1 percent
Sales of productsLess than 0.1 percent of Lilly's revenue
Dr. PrendergastMayo Clinic and Mayo Medical SchoolHealth Care and Educational InstitutionRetired EmployeeResearch grantsLess than 0.1 percent
Mayo FoundationCharitable OrganizationEmployee of affiliated Mayo Clinic and Mayo Medical SchoolContributionsLess than 0.1 percent
Dr. RungeUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolEducational InstitutionExecutive OfficerResearch grantsLess than 0.1 percent
University of North Carolina Medical SchoolEducational InstitutionExecutive OfficerResearch grantsLess than 0.1 percent
All of thesethe transactions described above were entered into at arm’s length in the normal course of business and, to the extent they are commercial relationships, have standard commercial terms. NoneAggregate payments to each of the relevant organizations, in each of the last four fiscal years, did not exceed the greater of $1 million or 2 percent of that organization's consolidated gross revenues in a single fiscal year for the relevant four-year period. No director had any direct business relationships with the company or received any direct

P17



personal benefit from any of these transactions, exceeded the thresholds described aboverelationships, or otherwise compromises the independencearrangements.

Committees of the named directors.Board of Directors


NameIndependentTransactions/Relationships/Arrangements
Mr. AlvarezYesNone
Dr. BaickerYesPayments to Harvard University totaling approximately $3.1 million (less than 0.1 percent of Harvard's total revenue), primarily for medical research
Sir Winfried BischoffYesNone
Mr. EskewYesNone
Mr. FyrwaldYesPurchases of products and services from Ecolab totaling approximately $0.7 million (less than 0.1 percent of Ecolab's total revenue)
Purchases of products from Univar, Inc. totaling $1.9 million (less than 0.1 percent of Univar's total revenue)
Dr. GilmanYesNone
Mr. HooverYesNone
Ms. HornYesNone
Dr. KaelinYesPayments to Harvard University totaling approximately $3.1 million (less than 0.1 percent of Harvard's total revenue), primarily for medical research
Payments to Brigham and Women's Hospital totaling approximately $0.7 million (less than 0.1 percent of Brigham's total revenue), primarily for medical research
Payments to Dana-Farber Cancer Institute totaling approximately $1.7 million (less than 0.1 percent of Dana-Farber's total revenue), primarily for medical research
Ms. MarramYesNone
Mr. OberhelmanYesNone
Dr. PrendergastYesPayments to the Mayo Clinic and the Mayo Foundation totaling approximately $4.4 million (less than 0.1 percent of Mayo's total revenue), primarily for medical research
Ms. SeifertYesNone
The duties and membership of the six Board-appointed committees are described below. All committee members are independent as defined in the NYSE listing requirements, and Lilly's independence standards, and the members of the Audit and Compensation Committees each meet the additional independence requirements applicable to them as members of those committees.

Director TenureThe Directors and Corporate Governance Committee makes recommendations to the board regarding director committee membership and selection of committee chairs. The Board has no set policy for rotation of committee members or chairs but annually reviews committee memberships and chair positions, seeking the best blend of continuity and fresh perspectives.
Subject
The chair of each committee determines the frequency and agenda of committee meetings. The Audit, Compensation, and Public Policy and Compliance Committees meet alone in executive session on a regular basis; all other committees meet in executive session as needed.

All six committee charters are available online at http://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfm, or upon request to the company's corporate secretary.

Audit Committee

Assists the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities by monitoring:

The integrity of financial information provided to the shareholders and others;
Management's systems of internal controls and disclosure controls;
The performance of internal and independent audit functions; and
The company's compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.

The committee has sole authority to appoint or replace the independent auditor, subject to shareholder ratification.

The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Eskew and Mr. Tai are audit committee financial experts, as defined in the SEC rules.

Compensation Committee

Oversees the company’s global compensation philosophy and policies;
Establishes the compensation of our chief executive officer and other executive officers;
Acts as the oversight committee with respect to the company’s charter documents,deferred compensation plans, management stock plans, and other management incentive compensation programs; and
Reviews succession plans for the following areCEO and other senior leadership positions.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

None of the board’s expectationsCompensation Committee members:
Has ever been an officer or employee of the company;
Is or has been a participant in a related-person transaction with the company (see “Review and Approval of Transactions with Related Persons” for a description of our policy on related-person transactions); or
Has any other interlocking relationships requiring disclosure under applicable SEC rules.


P18



Directors and Corporate Governance Committee

Together with the lead director, leads the process for director tenure:recruitment;
ARecommends to the Board candidates for membership on the Board and Board committees and for lead director; and
Oversees matters of corporate governance, including Board performance, director independence and compensation, the corporate governance guidelines, and shareholder engagement on governance matters.

Finance Committee

Reviews and makes recommendations to the Board regarding financial matters, including:

Capital structure and strategies;
Dividends;
Stock repurchases;
Capital expenditures;
Investments, financing, and borrowings;
Benefit plan funding and investments;
Financial risk management; and
Significant business-development opportunities.

Public Policy and Compliance Committee

Oversees the processes by which the company officer-director, includingconducts its business so that the chief executive officer,company will resign fromdo so in a manner that complies with laws and regulations and reflects the boardhighest standards of integrity;
Together with the Audit Committee, oversees the company's enterprise risk management program; and
Reviews and makes recommendations regarding policies, practices, and procedures of the company that relate to public policy and social, political, and economic issues.

Science and Technology Committee

Reviews and makes recommendations regarding the company’s strategic research goals and objectives;
Reviews new developments, technologies, and trends in pharmaceutical research and development;
Reviews the progress of the company's new product pipeline;
Reviews the scientific aspects of significant business development opportunities; and
Oversees matters of scientific and medical integrity and risk management.

Membership and Meetings of the Board and Its Committees

In 2015, each director attended at least 80 percent of the timetotal number of meetings of the Board and the committees on which he or she retires or otherwise ceasesserves. In addition, all Board members are expected to be an active employee of the company.
Nonemployee directors will retire from the board not later thanattend the annual meeting of shareholders, that follows their seventy-second birthday.
Directors may stand for reelection even thoughand all the board’s retirement policy would prevent them from completing a full three-year term.
A nonemployee director who retires or changes
principal job responsibilities will offer to resign fromdirectors attended in 2015. Current committee membership and the board. The directorsnumber of meetings of the Board and corporate governanceeach committee will assessin 2015 are shown in the situation and recommend to the board whether to accept the resignation.table below.
The directors and corporate governance committee, with input from all board members, also considers the contributions of individual directors at least every three years when considering whether to recommend nominating the director to a new three-year term.

Other Board Service
No new director may serve on more than three other public company boards, and no incumbent director may


12P19



accept new positions on public
NameBoardAuditCompensationDirectors and
Corporate Governance
FinancePublic Policy and
Compliance
Science and
Technology
Mr. AlvarezMember
Member


Member
Dr. BaickerMemberMember


Member
Mr. EskewMemberChair
MemberMember

Mr. FyrwaldMember



ChairMember
Mr. HooverMember

MemberChair

Ms. HornMember
ChairMember


Dr. KaelinMember


Member
Chair
Dr. LechleiterChair





Mr. LucianoMember   MemberMember 
Ms. MarramLead Director
MemberChair


Dr. PrendergastMember



MemberMember
Dr. RungeMember



MemberMember
Ms. SeifertMemberMemberMember



Mr. TaiMemberMember

Member

Number of 2015 Meetings91186948

Board Oversight of Compliance and Risk Management

The Board, together with the Audit and Public Policy and Compliance Committees, oversees the processes by which the company boardsconducts its business to ensure the company operates in a manner that would resultcomplies with laws and regulations and reflects the highest standards of integrity.

The company also has an enterprise risk management program overseen by its chief ethics and compliance officer/senior vice president of enterprise risk management, who reports directly to the CEO. Enterprise risks are identified and prioritized by management through both top-down and bottom-up processes. The top priorities are assigned to a Board committee or full Board for oversight. Company management is charged with managing risk through robust internal processes and controls. The enterprise risk management program as a whole is reviewed annually at a joint meeting of the Audit and Public Policy and Compliance Committees, and enterprise risks are also addressed in service onperiodic business unit reviews and at the annual board and senior management strategy session.

Code of Ethics

The board approves the company's code of ethics, which is set out in:

The Red Book: a comprehensive code of ethical and legal business conduct applicable to all employees worldwide and to our Board of Directors. The Red Book is reviewed and approved annually by the Board.

Code of Ethical Conduct for Lilly Financial Management: a supplemental code for our CEO and all members of financial management, in recognition of their unique responsibilities to ensure proper accounting, financial reporting, internal controls, and financial stewardship.

These documents are available online at: http://www.lilly.com/about/business-practices/ethics-compliance and https://www.lilly.com/About/Business-practices/Ethics-compliance/Code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct-financial-management.aspx, or upon request to the company's corporate secretary.

Highlights of the Company’s Corporate Governance

The company is committed to good corporate governance, which promotes the long-term interests of shareholders and other company stakeholders; builds confidence in our company leadership; and strengthens

P20



accountability for the Board and company management. The board has adopted corporate governance guidelines that set forth the company's basic principles of corporate governance. The section that follows outlines key elements of the guidelines and other governance matters. Investors can learn more than three other public company boards. by reviewing the full corporate governance guidelines document, which is available online at http://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfm or upon request to the company’s corporate secretary.

Role of the Board

The directors are elected by the shareholders to oversee the actions and results of the company’s management. The Board exercises oversight over a broad range of areas, but the Board's key responsibilities include:

Providing general oversight of the business;
Approving corporate governance committeestrategy;
Approving major management initiatives;
Selecting, compensating, evaluating, and, when necessary, replacing the chief executive officer, and compensating other senior executives;
Ensuring that an effective succession plan is in place for all senior executives;
Overseeing the company’s ethics and compliance program and management of significant business risks; and
Recruiting, nominating, compensating, and evaluating directors.

Board Composition and Requirements

Mix of Independent Directors and Officer-Directors
There should always be a substantial majority (75 percent or the chairmore) of that committee may approve exceptions to this limit uponindependent directors. The CEO should be a determination that such additional service will not impair the director’s effectiveness on the board.Board member.

Voting for Directors
In an uncontested election, directors are elected by a majority of the votes cast. Under the bylaws, anyAn incumbent nominee for director who fails to receive a majority of the votes cast shall promptlywill tender his or her resignation following certificationresignation. The Board, on recommendation of the shareholder vote. The directorsDirectors and corporate governance committeeCorporate Governance Committee, will consider the resignation offer and recommend to the boarddecide whether to accept it. The board will act on the committee’s recommendation within 90 days following certification of the shareholder vote. Board action on the matter will require the approval of a majority of the independent directors.

resignation. The company will promptly disclose the board’sBoard's decision, on a Form 8-K within four business days after the decision, including, a full explanation of the process by which the decision was reached and, if applicable, the reasons why the boardBoard rejected the director’s resignation. If

Director Tenure and Retirement Policy
Non-employee directors must retire no later than the resignation is accepted,date of the annual meeting that follows their seventy-second birthday. The Directors and Corporate Governance Committee has authority to recommend exceptions to this policy. The committee, with input from all Board members, also considers the contributions of the individual directors at least every three years when considering whether to nominate the director to a new three-year term.

Other Board Service
In general, no director may serve on more than three other public company boards. The Directors and corporate governanceCorporate Governance Committee may approve exceptions if it determines that the additional service will not impair the director's effectiveness on the Lilly Board. The Directors and Corporate Governance Committee reviewed an exception request for Mr. Alvarez (who serves on four other company boards), considering his attendance record and continued engagement in board matters. Upon review, the committee will recommenddetermined that he could effectively balance his other board responsibilities and continue to be a strong contributor to the board whetherLilly Board.

Board Confidentiality Policy
The Board has adopted a Confidentiality Policy, applicable to fill the vacancy or reduce the sizeall current and future members of the board.

AnyBoard. The policy prohibits a director who tendersfrom sharing confidential information obtained in his or her resignationrole as director with

P21



any outside party except under this provision will not participate inlimited circumstances where the directors and corporate governance committeedirector is seeking legal advice or board deliberations regardingis required to disclose information by order of law. The Confidentiality Policy can be viewed on the resignation offer.company's website here: http://www.lilly.com/about/corporate-governance/Pages/corporate-governance.aspx.

III. Director Compensation and Equity Ownership
The directors and corporate governance committee annually reviews board compensation and recommends any changes to the board.

Directors should hold meaningful equity ownership positions in the company; accordingly, a significant portion of director compensation is in the form of Lilly stock. Directors are required to hold Lilly stock, directly or through company plans, valued at not less than five times their annual cash retainer; new directors are allowed five years to reach this ownership level.

IV. Key Board Responsibilities
SelectionLeadership Structure; Oversight of Chairman, CEO, and Chief Executive Officer; Succession PlanningSenior Management
Leadership Structure
The boardBoard currently combinesbelieves that combining the role of chairman of the board withBoard and the role of chief executive officer,CEO, coupled with a strong lead director position, to further strengthenis the governance structure. The board believes this provides anmost efficient and effective leadership model for the company. Combining the chairman and CEO roles
fosterscompany, fostering clear accountability, effective decision-making, and alignment on corporate strategy. To assure effective independent oversight,The Board periodically reviews its leadership structure and developments in the boardarea of corporate governance in order to ensure that this approach continues to strike the appropriate balance for the company and our stakeholders.

Board Independence
The Board has adoptedput in place a number of governance practices to ensure effective independent oversight, including:
a strong, independent, clearly-defined lead director role (see below for a full description of the role)
executiveExecutive sessions of the independent directors: held after every regular board meetingmeeting.
annual
Annual performance evaluationsevaluation of the chairman and CEO: conducted by the independent directors.directors, the results of which are reviewed with the chief executive officer and considered by Compensation Committee in establishing the CEO’s compensation for the next year.

However, no single leadership model is right for all companies and at all times. Depending on the circumstances, other leadership models, such as a separateA strong, independent, clearly defined lead director role: The lead director's responsibilities include:
Leading the Board’s processes for selecting and evaluating the CEO;
Presiding at all meetings of the Board at which the chairman is not present;
Serving as a liaison between the chairman and the independent directors;
If requested by major shareholders, ensures that she is available for consultation and direct communication;
Approving meeting agendas and schedules and generally approving information sent to the Board;
Conducting executive sessions of the independent directors;
Overseeing the independent directors' annual performance evaluation of the chairman and CEO; and
Together with the Directors and Corporate Governance Committee, leading the director recruitment process.

The lead director also has authority to call meetings of the board, might be appropriate. Accordingly,independent directors and to retain advisers for the board periodically reviews its leadership structure.independent directors.

The lead director recommendsis appointed annually by the Board. Currently Ms. Marram is the lead director.

Director access to management and independent advisors: Independent directors have direct access to members of management whenever they deem it necessary; and the board an appropriate process by which a new chairmancompany's executive officers attend part of each regularly scheduled Board meeting. The independent directors and all committees are also free to retain their own independent advisors, at company expense, whenever they feel it would be desirable to do so.

CEO Succession Planning
The Compensation Committee, Board, and CEO will be selected. The board has no required procedureannually review the company's succession plans for executing this responsibility because it believes that the most appropriate process will depend on the circumstances surrounding each such decision.

A key responsibility of the CEO and the board is ensuring that an effective process is in place to provide continuity ofother key senior leadership over the long term. Each year, succession-planning reviews culminate in a detailed review of top leadership talent by the compensation committee and a summary review by the independent directors as a whole.positions. During these reviews, the CEO and the independent directors discuss future candidates for the CEO and other senior leadership positions, succession timing, for those positions, and development plans for the highest-potential candidates. During the year,The company ensures that the directors have multiple

P22



opportunities to interact with the company's top leadership talent in both formal and informal settings.settings in order to allow them to most effectively assess the candidates' qualifications and capabilities.

The CEO maintains in place at all times, and reviews with the independent directors and the CEO maintain a confidential plan for the timely and efficient transfer of histhe CEO's responsibilities in the event of an emergency or his sudden departure, incapacitation, or death.

EvaluationBoard Education and Annual Performance Assessment

The company engages in a comprehensive orientation process for incoming new directors. Directors also receive ongoing continuing educational sessions on areas of Chief Executive Officerparticular relevance or importance to our company and we hold periodic mandatory training sessions for the Audit Committee.
The lead director is responsible for leading
Additionally, the independent directors in executive session to assess the performanceDirectors and Corporate Governance Committee conducts an annual assessment of the chief executive officer at least annually. The results of this assessment are reviewed with the chief executive officer and considered by the compensationBoard's performance, Board committee in establishing the chief executive officer’s compensation for the next year.

Corporate Strategy
Once each year, the board devotes an extended meeting with senior management to discuss the strategic issues and opportunities facing the company, allowing the


13



board an opportunity to provide direction for the corporate strategic plan. These strategy sessions also provide the board an opportunity to interact extensively with the company’s senior leadership team.

Throughout the year, significant corporate strategy decisions are brought to the board in a timely way for its consideration.

Code of Ethics
The board approves the company’s code of ethics. This code is set out in:
The Red Book, a comprehensive code of ethical and legal business conduct applicable to all employees worldwide and to our board of directors
Code of Ethical Conduct for Lilly Financial Management, a supplemental code for our chief executive officerperformance, and all members of financial management that recognizes the unique responsibilities of those individuals in assuring proper accounting, financial reporting, internal controls, and financial stewardship.

Both documents are available online at http://www.lilly.com/about/business-practices/ethics-compliance, or upon request to the company’s corporate secretary.

The audit committee and public policy and compliance committee assist in the board’s oversight of compliance programs with respect to matters covered in the code of ethics.

Risk Oversight
The company has an enterprise risk management program overseen by its chief ethics and compliance officer and senior vice president of enterprise risk management, who reports directly to the CEO and is a member of the company’s top leadership committee. Enterprise risks are identified and prioritized by management, and the top prioritized risks are assigned to a board committee or the full board for oversight. For example, strategic risks are typically overseen by the full board; financial risks are overseen by the audit or finance committee; compliance and reputational risks are typically overseen by the public policy and compliance committee; and scientific risks are overseen by the science and technology committee. Management periodically reportsBoard processes based on each such risk to the relevant committee or the board. The enterprise risk management program as a whole is reviewed annually at a joint meeting of the audit and public policy and compliance committees, and enterprise risks are also addressed at the annual board strategy session. Additional review or reporting on enterprise risks is conducted as needed or as requested by the board or relevant committee. Also, the compensation committee periodically reviews the most important enterprise risks to ensure that compensation programs do not
encourage excessive risk-taking. The board’s role in the oversight of risk had no effect on the board’s leadership structure.

V. Functioning of the Board
Executive Sessions of Directors
The independent directors meet alone in executive session and in private session with the CEO at every regularly scheduled board meeting.
Lead Director
The board annually appoints a lead directorinput from among the independent directors. Currently the lead director is Ms. Marram. The board has no set policy for rotation of the lead director role but believes that periodic rotation is appropriate. The lead director:
leads the board’s processes for selecting and evaluating the CEO
presides at all meetings of the board at which the chairman is not present, including executive sessions of the independent directors unless the directors decide that, due to the subject matter of the session, another independent director should preside
serves as a liaison between the chairman and the independent directors
approves meeting agendas and schedules and generally approves information sent to the board;
has the authority to call meetings of the independent directors
has the authority to retain advisers to the independent directors.

Conflicts of Interest and Transactions with Related Persons
Occasionally a director’s business or personal relationships may give rise to an interest that conflicts, or appears to conflict, with the interests
Conflicts of the company. Interest
Directors must disclose to the company all relationships that create a conflict or an appearance of a conflict. The board,Board, after consultation with counsel, takes appropriate steps to identify actual or apparent conflicts and ensure that all directors voting on an issue are disinterested. A director willmay be excused from discussions on the issue, as appropriate.

Review and Approval of Transactions with Related Persons
The boardBoard has adopted a written policy and written procedures for review, approval, and monitoring of transactions involving the company and related persons (directors and executive officers, their immediate family members, or shareholders of 5 percent or greater of the company’s outstanding stock). The policy covers any related-person transaction that meets the minimum threshold for disclosure in the proxy statement under the relevant SEC rules (generally, transactions involving amounts exceeding $120,000 in which a related person has a direct or indirect material interest).



14



Policy: Related-person transactions must be approved by the boardBoard or by a committee of the boardBoard consisting solely of independent directors, whowill approve the transaction only if they determine that it is in the best interests of the company. In considering thetransaction, the boardBoard or committee will consider all relevant factors, including:
the
The company’s business rationale for entering into the transaction;
theThe alternatives to entering into a related-person transaction;
whetherWhether the transaction is on terms comparable to those available to third parties, or in the case of employment relationships, to employees generally;
theThe potential for the transaction to lead to an actual or apparent conflict of interest and any safeguards imposed to prevent such actual or apparent conflicts; and
theThe overall fairness of the transaction to the company.

The boardBoard or relevant committee will periodically monitor the transaction to ensure that there are no changed circumstances that would render it advisable to amend or terminate the transaction.

Procedures:
Management or the affected director or executive officer will bring the matter to the attention of the chairman, the lead director, the chair of the directorsDirectors and corporate governance committee,Corporate Governance Committee, or the secretary.
The chairman and the lead director shall jointly determine (or, if either is involved in the transaction, the other shall determine in consultation with the chair of the directors and corporate governance committee)determine) whether the matter should be considered by the boardBoard or by one of its

P23



existing committees consisting only of independent directors.committees.
If a director is involved in the transaction, he or she will be recused from all discussions and decisions about the transaction.
The transaction must be approved in advance whenever practicable, and if not practicable, must be ratified as promptly as practicable.
The boardBoard or relevant committee will review the transaction annually to determine whether it continues to be in the company’s best interests.

The directorsDirectors and corporate governance committeeCorporate Governance Committee has approved the following employment relationships which are considered related-party transactions.transactions under the SEC rules.

We have three current employees who are relatives of executive officers. Dr. John Bamforth, senior director,vice president, chief marketing officer, Lilly Bio-Medicines, is the spouse of Dr. Susan Mahony, senior vice president and president, Lilly Oncology, and has been employed by the company for over 20 years. In 2012, he was paid approximately $362,000 in cash compensation, and he received grants under the company’s performance-based equity
program valued at approximately $49,000 based upon the fair value computed in accordance with stock-based compensation accounting rules (FASB ASC Topic 718). Similarly, Mr.an executive officer. Myles O’Neill, senior vice president, global drug products, is the spouse of Dr. Fionnuala Walsh, senior vice president, global quality,an executive officer. Finally, Andrew Lechleiter, advisor, strategy and has been employed byoperations, Amyvid, is the company for over 10 years. Hisson of Dr. John Lechleiter, Lilly's CEO. For 2015, these three employees received compensation, including cash compensation, and, in 2012 was approximately $684,000 and his equity grants were valued at approximately $141,000. Boththe case of Dr. Bamforth and Mr. O’NeillO'Neill, equity grants, of between $176,000 and $1.5 million.

All three individuals participate in the company’s benefit programs generally available to U.S. employees, and theiremployees. Their compensation was established in accordanceis consistent with the company’s compensation practices applicablepaid to other employees at their levels and with equivalent qualificationsthe Company's overall compensation principles based on their years of experience, performance, and responsibilities and holding similar positions.positions within the company.

OrientationCommunication with the Board of New Directors; Director EducationDirectors
A comprehensive orientation process is
You may send written communications to one or more members of the Board, addressed to:
Board of Directors
Eli Lilly and Company
c/o Corporate Secretary
Lilly Corporate Center
Indianapolis, IN 46285

Shareholder Engagement on Governance Issues

Each year, the company engages large shareholders and other key constituents to discuss key areas of interest or concern related to corporate governance, as well as any specific issues for the coming proxy season. In 2015, we spoke with a number of our largest investors. Issues discussed included shareholders' perspectives regarding a potential management proposal to eliminate the company's classified board and supermajority voting requirements, proxy access, board composition and recruitment, and the company's executive compensation, among other topics. The overall tone from these conversations was positive and the investors with whom we spoke were generally supportive of our overall compensation and governance policies. We have shared the feedback we received from these conversations with our Compensation Committee and Directors and Corporate Governance Committee. We are committed to continuing to engage with our investors to ensure their diverse perspectives are thoughtfully considered.

Prior Management Proposals to Eliminate Classified Board and Supermajority Voting Requirements
Between 2007 and 2012, each year we submitted management proposals to eliminate the company's classified board structure. The proposals did not pass because they failed to receive a “supermajority vote” of 80 percent of the outstanding shares, as required in place for new directors.the company's articles of incorporation. In addition, directors receive ongoing continuing education through educational sessions at meetings,in 2010, 2011, 2012, we submitted management proposals to eliminate the annual strategy retreat, and periodic communications between meetings. We hold periodic mandatory training sessions forsupermajority voting requirements themselves. Those proposals also fell short of the audit committee,required 80 percent vote.   

Prior to which other directors and executive officers are invited. We also afford directors2012, these proposals received support ranging from 72 to 77 percent of the opportunity to attend external director education programs.

Director Access to Management and Independent Advisors
Independent directors have direct access to membersoutstanding shares. In 2012, the vote was even lower, approximately 63 percent of management whenever they deem it necessary. The company’s executive officers attend at leastthe outstanding shares, driven in part of each regularly scheduled board meeting. The independent directors and committees are also free to retainby a 2012 NYSE rule revision prohibiting brokers from voting their own independent advisors, at company expense, whenever they feel it would be desirable to do so. The audit, compensation, and directors andclients' shares on corporate governance committees have sole authority to retain independent advisors to their respective committees.matters

Assessment of Board Processes and Performance
The directors and corporate governance committee annually assesses the performance of the board, its committees, and board processes based on inputs from all directors.


15P24



absent specific instructions from such clients. We have decided not to resubmit those proposals in 2016 based on our discussions with large shareholders as described above and our assessment that the proposals would not be successful. We will continue to monitor this situation and engage with our shareholders on these and other topics to ensure that we continue to demonstrate strong corporate governance and accountability to shareholders.

CommitteesShareholder proposals
If a shareholder wishes to have a proposal considered for inclusion in next year’s proxy statement, he or she must submit the proposal in writing so that we receive it by November 21, 2016. Proposals should be addressed to the company’s corporate secretary, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285. In addition, the company’s bylaws provide that any shareholder wishing to propose any other business at the annual meeting must give the company written notice by November 21, 2016 and no earlier than September 22, 2016. That notice must provide certain other information as described in the bylaws. Copies of the Board of Directors
Number, Structure, and Independence
The duties and membership of the six board-appointed committees are described below. Only independent directors may serve on the committees.

Committee membership and selection of committee chairs are recommended to the board by the directors and corporate governance committee after consulting the chairman of the board and after considering the backgrounds, skills, and desires of the board members. The board has no set policy for rotation of committee members or chairs but annually reviews committee memberships and chair positions, seeking the best blend of continuity and fresh perspectives.

Functioning of Committees
Each committee reviews and approves its own charter annually, and the directors and corporate governance committee reviews and approves all committee charters annually. The chair of each committee determines the frequency and agenda of committee meetings. The audit, compensation, and public policy and compliance committees meet alone in executive session on a regular basis; all other committees meet in executive session as needed.

All six committee chartersbylaws are available online athttp://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfm or upon request to the company'scompany’s corporate secretary.

Audit Committee
The duties of the audit committee are described in “Audit Committee Matters” below.

Compensation Committee
The duties of the compensation committee are described in “Compensation Committee Matters” below.

Directors and Corporate Governance Committee
The duties of the directors and corporate governance
committee are described in “Directors and Corporate Governance Committee Matters” below.

Finance Committee
The finance committee reviews and makes recommendations regarding capital structure and strategies, including dividends, stock repurchases, capital expenditures, investments, financings and borrowings, financial risk management, and significant business-development projects.

Public Policy and Compliance Committee
The public policy and compliance committee:
oversees the processes by which the company conducts its business so that the company will do so in a manner that complies with laws and regulations and reflects the highest standards of integrity; and
reviews and makes recommendations regarding policies, practices, and procedures of the company that relate to public policy and social, political, and economic issues.

Science and Technology Committee
The science and technology committee:
reviews and makes recommendations regarding the company’s strategic research goals and objectives;
reviews new developments, technologies, and trends in pharmaceutical research and development;
reviews the progress of the company's new product pipeline; and
oversees matters of scientific and medical integrity and risk management.

Membership and Meetings of the Board and Its Committees
In 2012, each director attended more than 85 percent of the total number of meetings of the board and the committees on which he or she serves. In addition, all board members are expected to attend the annual meeting of shareholders, and all the directors attended in 2012. Current committee membership and the number of meetings of the board and each committee in 2012 are shown in the table below.


16



NameBoardAuditCompensationDirectors and
Corporate Governance
FinancePublic Policy and
Compliance
Science and
Technology
Mr. AlvarezMember


MemberMemberMember
Dr. BaickerMemberMember


Member
Sir Winfried BischoffMember

MemberChair

Mr. EskewMemberChair

Member

Mr. FyrwaldMember



ChairMember
Dr. GilmanMember



MemberChair
Mr. HooverMemberMemberMember



Ms. HornMember
ChairMember


Dr. KaelinMember


Member
Member
Dr. LechleiterChair





Ms. MarramLead Director
MemberChair


Mr. OberhelmanMemberMember

Member

Dr. PrendergastMember



MemberMember
Ms. SeifertMemberMemberMember



Number of 2012 Meetings81075685
Directors and Corporate Governance Committee Matters
Overview
The directors and corporate governance committee recommends to the board candidates for membership on the board and board committees and for lead director. The committee also oversees matters of corporate governance, including board performance, director independence and compensation, and the corporate governance guidelines.
All committee members are independent as defined in the NYSE listing requirements.
Director Qualifications
The board seeks independent directors who represent a mix of backgrounds and experiences that will enhance the quality of the board’s deliberations and decisions. Candidates shall have substantial experience with one or more publicly-traded national or multinational companies or shall have achieved a high level of distinction in their chosen fields.
Board membership should reflect diversity in its broadest sense, including persons diverse in geography, gender, and ethnicity. The board is particularly interested in maintaining a mix that includes the following backgrounds:
active or retired chief executive officers and senior executives, particularly those with experience in operations, finance, accounting, banking, marketing, and sales;
international business;
medicine and science;
government and public policy; and
health care system (public or private).


Finally, board members should display the personal attributes necessary to be an effective director: unquestioned integrity; sound judgment; independence in fact and mindset; ability to operate collaboratively; and commitment to the company, its shareholders, and other constituencies.

Our board members represent a desirable mix of backgrounds, skills, and experiences, and they all share the personal attributes of effective directors described above. The board monitors the effectiveness of this approach via an annual internal board assessment as well as ongoing director succession planning discussions by the directors and corporate governance committee. Specific experiences and skills of our independent directors are included in ”Director Biographies” above.

Director Nomination Process
The board delegates the director screening process to the directors and corporate governance committee, which receives direct input from other board members.

Potential candidates are identified through recommendations from several sources, including:
incumbent directors;
management;
shareholders; and
independent executive search firms that may be retained by the committee to assist in locating and screening candidates meeting the board’s selection criteria.

The committee employs the same process for evaluating all candidates, including those submitted by shareholders. The committee initially evaluates a


17



candidate based on publicly available information and any additional information supplied by the party recommending the candidate. If the candidate appears to satisfy the selection criteria and the committee’s initial evaluation is favorable, the committee, assisted by management or the search firm, gathers additional data on the candidate’s qualifications, availability, probable level of interest, and any potential conflicts of interest. If the committee’s subsequent evaluation continues to be favorable, the candidate is contacted by the chairman of the board and one or more of the independent directors for direct discussions to determine the mutual levels of interest in pursuing the candidacy. If these discussions are favorable, the committee makes a final recommendation to the board to nominate the candidate for election by the shareholders (or to select the candidate to fill a vacancy, as applicable).

Process for SubmittingShareholder Recommendations and Nominations for Director Candidates
A shareholder who wishes to recommend a director candidate for evaluation by the committee should forward the candidate’scandidate's name and information about the candidate’scandidate's qualifications to the chairto:

Chair of the directorsDirectors and corporate governance committee, in care of the corporate secretary, at Corporate Governance Committee
c/o Corporate Secretary
Lilly Corporate Center
Indianapolis, Indiana 46285. IN 46285

The candidate must meet the selection criteria described above and must be willing and expressly interested in serving on the board.Board.

Under Section 1.9 of the company’s bylaws, a shareholder who wishes to directly nominate a director candidate at the 20142017 annual meeting (i.e., to propose a candidate for election who is not otherwise nominated by the boardBoard through the recommendation process described above) must give the company written notice by November 25, 201321, 2016 and no earlierthan
September22, 2013.2016. The notice should be addressed to the corporate secretary at Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285.the address provided above. The notice must contain prescribed information about the candidate and about the shareholder proposing the candidate as described in more detail in Section 1.9 of the bylaws. A copy of the bylaws is available online at http://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfm. The bylaws will also be provided by mail upon request to the corporate secretary.

Prior Management Proposals to Eliminate Classified Board and Supermajority Voting Requirements
In each of the past six years, we submitted management proposals to eliminate the company's classified board structure. The proposals did not pass because they failed to receive a “supermajority vote” of
80 percent of the outstanding shares, as required in the company's bylaws. In addition, in each of the past three years, we submitted management proposals to eliminate the supermajority voting requirements themselves. Those proposals also fell short of the required 80 percent vote.   
 Prior to 2012, these proposals received support ranging from 72 to 77 percent of the outstanding shares. In 2012, the vote was even lower, approximately 63 percent of the outstanding shares, driven in part by a 2012 NYSE rule revision prohibiting brokers from voting their clients' shares on corporate governance matters absent specific instructions from such clients. In preparation for 2013, we discussed these matters with our proxy solicitor and our major shareholders, including those who have supported and opposed these proposals in the past. We have concluded that the proposals would not be successful in 2013 and therefore we are not resubmitting them. We will continue to monitor this situation and engage in dialogue with our shareholders on these andreceived any notice regarding shareholder nominations for board candidates or other governance topics to ensure that Lilly continues to demonstrate strong corporate governance and accountability to shareholders.
Audit Committee Matters

Audit Committee Membership
All members of the audit committee are independent as defined in the SEC regulations and NYSE listing standards applicable to audit committee members. The board of directors has determined that Mr. Eskew, Mr. Hoover, and Mr. Oberhelman are audit committee financial experts, as defined in the rules of the SEC.

Audit Committee Report
The audit committee reviews the company’s financial reporting process on behalf of the board. Management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements and the reporting process, including the systems of internal controls and disclosure controls. In this context, the committee has met and held discussions with management and the independent auditor. Management represented to the committee that the company’s consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and the committee has reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements and related disclosures with management and the independent auditor, including a review of the significant management judgments underlying the financial statements and disclosures.

The independent auditor reports to the committee, which has sole authority to appoint and to replace the independent auditor.

The committee has discussed with the independent auditor matters requiredshareholder business to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61 (Communication with Audit Committees), as amended and as adopted bypresented at the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in Rule 3200T, including the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles, the


18


meeting.

reasonableness of significant judgments, and the clarity of the disclosures in the financial statements. In addition, the committee has received the written disclosures and the letter from the independent auditor required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding communications with the audit committee concerning independence, and has discussed with the independent auditor the auditor’s independence from the company and its management. In concluding that the auditor is independent, the committee determined, among other things, that the nonaudit services provided by Ernst & Young LLP (as described below) were compatible with its independence. Consistent with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Sarbanes-Oxley Act), the committee has adopted policies toavoid compromising the independence of the independent auditor, such as prior committee approval of nonaudit services and required audit partner rotation.

The committee discussed with the company’s internal and independent auditors the overall scope and plans for their respective audits, including internal control testing under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The committee periodically meets with the internal and independent auditors, with and without management present, and in private sessions with members of senior management (such as the chief financial officer and the chief accounting officer) to discuss the results of their examinations, their evaluations of the company’s internal controls, and the overall quality of the company’s financial reporting. The committee also periodically meets in executive session.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the committee recommended to the board (and the board subsequently approved the recommendation) that the audited financial statements be included in the company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, for filing with the SEC. The committee has also appointed the company’s independent auditor, subject to shareholder ratification, for 2013.

Audit Committee
Michael L. Eskew, Chair
Katherine Baicker, Ph.D.
R. David Hoover
Douglas R. Oberhelman
Kathi P. Seifert

Services Performed by the Independent Auditor
The audit committee preapproves all services performed by the independent auditor, in part to assess
whether the provision of such services might impair the auditor’s independence. The committee’s policy and procedures are as follows:
The committee approves the annual audit services engagement and, if necessary, any changes in terms, conditions, and fees resulting from changes in audit scope, company structure, or other matters. Audit services include internal controls attestation work under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The committee may also preapprove other audit services, which are those services that only the independent auditor reasonably can provide.
Audit-related services are assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit, and that are traditionally performed by the independent auditor. The committee believes that the provision of these services does not impair the independence of the auditor.
The committee believes that, in appropriate cases, the independent auditor can provide tax compliance services, tax planning, and tax advice without impairing the auditor’s independence.
The committee may approve other services to be provided by the independent auditor if (i) the services are permissible under SEC and PCAOB rules, (ii) the committee believes the provision of the services would not impair the independence of the auditor, and (iii) management believes that the auditor is the best choice to provide the services.
At the beginning of each audit year, management requests prior committee approval of the annual audit, statutory audits, and quarterly reviews for the upcoming audit year as well as any other engagements known at that time. Management will also present at that time an estimate of all fees for the upcoming audit year. As specific engagements are identified thereafter, they are brought forward to the committee for approval. To the extent approvals are required between regularly scheduled committee meetings, preapproval authority is delegated to the committee chair.

For each engagement, management provides the committee with information about the services and fees, sufficiently detailed to allow the committee to make an informed judgment about the nature and scope of the services and the potential for the services to impair the independence of the auditor.

After the end of the audit year, management provides the committee with a summary of the actual fees incurred for the completed audit year.




19



Independent Auditor Fees
The following table shows the fees incurred for services rendered on a worldwide basis by the company’s independent auditor in 2012 and 2011. All such services were preapproved by the committee in accordance with the preapproval policy.

2012
(millions)
2011
(millions)
Audit Fees

$8.8$8.8
Annual audit of consolidated and subsidiary financial statements, including Sarbanes-Oxley 404 attestation

Reviews of quarterly financial statements

Other services normally provided by the auditor in connection with statutory and regulatory filings

Audit-Related Fees
$0.7$1.5
Assurance and related services reasonably related to the performance of the audit or reviews of the financial statements



2012 and 2011: primarily related to employee benefit plan and other ancillary audits, and due diligence services on potential acquisitions

Tax Fees

$2.2$3.4
2012 and 2011: primarily related to consulting and compliance services

All Other Fees

$0.4$0.5
2012 and 2011: primarily related to compliance services outside the U.S.

Total

$12.1$14.2

Compensation Committee Matters

Scope of Authority
The compensation committee oversees the company’s global compensation philosophy and policies, as well as establishes the compensation of executive officers. The committee also acts as the oversight committee with respect to the company’s deferred compensation plans, management stock plans, and other management incentive compensation programs. The committee delegates authority to the appropriate company management for day-to-day plan administration and interpretation, including selecting participants, determining award levels within plan parameters, and approving award documents. However, the committee may not delegate any authority for matters affecting the executive officers.

The Committee’s Processes and Procedures
The committee’s primary processes for establishing and overseeing executive compensation can be found in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section and in the summary below.

The committee's key processes and procedures for setting and overseeing executive compensation include:

Meetings. The committee meets several times each year (7 times in 2012). Committee agendas are approved by the committee chair in consultation with the committee’s independent compensation consultant. The committee meets in executive session after each regular meeting.

Retention of independent consultant. The committee has retained Cimi B. Silverberg of Frederic W. Cook &
Co., Inc., as its independent compensation consultant to assist the committee. Ms. Silverberg reports directly to the committee. Neither she nor her firm is permitted to have any business or personal relationship with management or the members of the compensation committee. The consultant’s duties include the following:
reviewing committee agendas and supporting materials in advance of each meeting and raising questions with the company’s global compensation group and the committee chair as appropriate
reviewing the company’s total compensation philosophy, peer group, and target competitive positioning for reasonableness and appropriateness
reviewing the company’s executive compensation program and advising the committee of evolving best practices
providing independent analyses and recommendations to the committee on the CEO’s pay
reviewing draft “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” and related tables for the proxy statement
proactively advising the committee on best practices for board governance of executive compensation
undertaking special projects at the request of the committee chair.

The consultant interacts directly with members of company management only on matters under the committee’s oversight and with the knowledge and permission of the committee chair.

Role of executive officers and management. With the oversight of the CEO and the senior vice president of


20



human resources and diversity, the company’s global compensation group formulates recommendations on compensation philosophy, plan design, and the specific compensation recommendations for executive officers (other than the CEO, as noted below). The CEO gives the committee a performance assessment and compensation recommendation for each of the other executive officers. The committee considers those recommendations with the assistance of its consultant. The CEO and the senior vice president of human resources and diversity attend committee meetings but are not present for executive sessions or for any discussion of their own compensation. (Only nonemployee directors and the committee’s consultant attend executive sessions.)

The CEO does not participate in the formulation or discussion of his pay recommendations and has no prior knowledge of the recommendations that the consultant makes to the committee.

Risk assessment. With the help of its consultant, in 2012 the committee reviewed the company’s compensation policies and practices for employees, including executive officers. The committee concluded that the company’s compensation programs are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the company, after reviewing the business risks identified in the annual enterprise risk management assessment process. The committee noted several design features of the company’s cash and equity incentive programs that reduce the likelihood of inappropriate risk-taking:
independent compensation committee oversight
compensation committee engages independent compensation consultant
compensation committee has downward discretion to lower compensation plan payouts
threshold levels below target that provide for payouts and maximums that cap payouts
different measures and metrics used across multiple incentive plans; appropriate balance of cash/stock, fixed/variable pay, short-term/long-term incentive
compensation committee approval process for adjustments to financial results for compensation purposes
programs are self-funded; the cost of incentive program payouts is included when determining payout results
performance objectives are appropriately challenging yet achievable
target setting includes multiple inputs
appropriate levels of leverage exist within the programs
limited stock option usage
continuum of payout multiples for individual performance
review of top talent and retention plans
policy prohibiting hedging of company shares
negative compensation consequences for serious compliance violations and compensation recovery policy in place for executives
meaningful share ownership requirements for all members of senior management.
The committee concluded the company’s compensation programs do not encourage excessive risk among executive officers and instead encourage behaviors that support sustainable value creation.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
None of the compensation committee members:
has ever been an officer of the company
has been an employee of the company since prior to 1980
is or was a participant in a related-person transaction in 2012 (see “Review and Approval of Transactions with Related Persons” for a description of our policy on related-person transactions).

None of our board members or compensation committee members is an executive officer of another entity at which one of our executive officers serves on the board of directors.


21P25



Compensation DiscussionOwnership of Company Stock

Common Stock Ownership by Directors and AnalysisExecutive Officers
The following table sets forth the number of shares of company common stock beneficially owned by the directors, the named executive officers, and all directors and executive officers as a group, as of February 19, 2016. None of the stock, stock options, or stock units owned by any of the listed individuals has been pledged as collateral for a loan or other obligation.
Beneficial Owners
Common Stock 1
Stock Units Not Distributable Within 60 Days 4
Shares Owned 2
 
Options Exercisable/Stock Units Distributable Within 60 Days 3
Ralph Alvarez
 
30,670
Katherine Baicker, Ph.D.
 
10,380
Enrique A. Conterno118,397
 
30,244
Michael L. Eskew
 
31,279
J. Erik Fyrwald100
 
51,185
Michael J. Harrington60,329
 
9,732
R. David Hoover1,000
 
30,777
Karen N. Horn, Ph.D.
 
73,582
William G. Kaelin, Jr., M.D.
 
8,971
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.976,078
5 

46,097
Jan M. Lundberg, Ph.D.115,772
 
15,366
Ellen R. Marram1,000
 
44,914
Franklyn G. Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D.
 
63,495
Derica W. Rice386,777
6 

19,463
Marschall S. Runge, M.D., Ph.D.
 
4,995
Kathi P. Seifert3,533
 
57,891
Jackson P. Tai35,258
 
4,494
All directors and executive officers as a group (26 people)7:
2,395,063
 
721,174

Summary
Executive compensation for 2012 aligned well with the objectives of our compensation philosophy and with our performance, driven by these factors:
1 
The company exceeded internal corporate goalssum of the "Shares Owned" and "Options Exercisable/Stock Units Distributable Within 60 Days" columns represents the shares considered "beneficially owned" for revenue and earnings per share (EPS) as well as pipeline progress, as the company continued to navigate through a challenging periodpurposes of significant patent expirations. The pipeline also progressed well, with approvals of Amyvid, Alimta® continuation maintenancedisclosure in the U.S., Cymbalta® for generalized anxiety disorderproxy statement. Unless otherwise indicated in China, Cialis® for benign prostatic hyperplasiaa footnote, each person listed in the EU,table possesses sole voting and Exenatide Once Weekly® as well as six other approvals. Two new molecular entities (NMEs) entered Phase III, and 75sole investment power with respect to their shares. No person listed in the table owns more than 0.1 percent of project milestones for molecules in development were met or accelerated. Asthe outstanding common stock of the company. All directors and executive officers as a result, the annual cash incentive bonus paid out at 142group own approximately 0.2 percent of target.
• Two-year adjusted non-GAAP EPS growth fell to the bottom of our peer group, an expected consequenceoutstanding common stock of the Zyprexa patent expiration, resulting in a payout of 50 percent of target for the 2011-2012 Performance Award (PA). Three-yearcompany.
2 This column includes the number of shares of common stock held individually as well as the number of
401(k) Plan shares held by the beneficial owners indirectly through the 401(k) Plan.
3
This column includes stock price growth of 35 percent resulted in the 2010-2012 Shareholder Value Award (SVA) paying out at 140 percent of target.
Highlights:
• No changes to compensationoptions exercisable within 60 days and benefit design in 2012
Revenue and EPS decline due to Zyprexa® patent expiration, but both exceed internal targets
Above-target performance in advancing the pipeline
• Strong stock price performance in 2012
No increase to CEO salary or incentive targets for 2010, 2011, or 2012
RSUs that vest within 60 days.
4 For the executive officers, this column reflects RSUs that will not vest within 60 days. For the independent directors, this column includes the number of stock units credited to the directors' accounts in the Lilly Directors' Deferral Plan.
5 The shares shown for Dr. Lechleiter include 56,148 shares that are owned by a family foundation for which he is a director. Dr. Lechleiter has shared voting power and shared investment power with respect to the shares held by the foundation. Also included are 4,243 shares held in family trusts. Pursuant to the terms of the trusts, Dr. Lechleiter has shared investment power and no voting power over the shares held in the trusts.
6 The shares shown for Mr. Rice include 11,596 shares that are owned by a family foundation for which he is a director. Mr. Rice has shared voting power and shared investment power with respect to the shares held by the foundation.
A balanced program fosters employee achievement, retention,7 Mr. Luciano joined the Board in February 2016, and engagementcurrently does not beneficially own any shares.. We delivered a total compensation package composed of salary, performance-based cash and equity incentives, and a competitive employee benefits program. The Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan (the bonus plan) metrics of revenue, EPS, and pipeline performance against internal goals are designed to drive solid operational performance, promote innovation, and motivate employees during the next few years of patent expirations and business challenges. By contrast, for our long-term equity programs, we use the external metrics of EPS growth versus our peers and

22P26



Principal Holders of Stock
To the best of the company’s knowledge, the only beneficial owners of more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of the company’s common stock, priceas of December 31, 2015, are the shareholders listed below:
Name and AddressNumber of Shares
Beneficially Owned
Percent of Class
Lilly Endowment Inc. (the Endowment)
2801 North Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46208
127,860,80411.5%


BlackRock, Inc.
55 East 52nd Street
New York, New York 10055
66,007,9646.0%


The Vanguard Group
100 Vanguard Blvd.
Malvern, PA 19355
59,913,1795.4%


PRIMECAP Management Company
225 South Lake Ave., #400
Pasadena, CA 91101
57,654,3925.2%



The Endowment has sole voting and sole dispositive power with respect to all of its shares. The Board of Directors of the Endowment is composed of N. Clay Robbins, chairman, president & chief executive officer; Mary K. Lisher; William G. Enright; Daniel P. Carmichael; Charles E. Golden; Eli Lilly II; David N. Shane; Craig Dykstra; and Jennett M. Hill.

BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services for various clients. It has sole voting power with respect to 57,088,447 of its shares and sole dispositive power with respect to 65,974,281 of its shares.

The Vanguard Group provides investment management services for various clients. It has sole voting power with respect to 1,832,006 of its shares and sole dispositive power with respect to 57,973,673 of its shares.

PRIMECAP Management Company acts as investment advisor to various clients. It has sole voting power with respect to 11,365,505 shares and sole dispositive power with respect to all of its shares.
Compensation

Item 2. Advisory Vote on Compensation Paid to Named Executive Officers

Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provides the company's shareholders with the opportunity to approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company's named executive officers as disclosed in the proxy statement. As described in the CD&A section below, our compensation philosophy is designed to attract and retain highly-talented individuals and motivate them to create long-term shareholder value by achieving top-tier corporate performance versus expected large-cap returns. Together these elements reinforce pay-for-performance, provide balance (between short-while embracing the company’s values of integrity, excellence, and long-term performance, internal and external metrics, cash and stock compensation, fixed and variable pay), and encourage employee retention and engagement.respect for people.

The Compensation Committee’s ProcessesCommittee and Analysesthe Board of Directors believe that our executive compensation aligns well with our philosophy and with corporate performance. Executive compensation is an important matter for our shareholders. We routinely review our compensation practices and engage in ongoing dialog with our shareholders in order to ensure our practices are aligned with stakeholder interests and reflect best practices.
Linking Business Strategy
We request shareholder approval, on an advisory basis, of the compensation of the company’s named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement. As an advisory vote, this proposal is not binding on the company. However, the Compensation Committee values input from shareholders and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future executive compensation decisions.


P27



Board Recommendation on Item 2

The Board recommends that you vote FOR the approval, on an advisory basis, of the compensation paid to the named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, including the CD&A, the compensation tables, and related narratives provided below in this proxy statement.
Compensation Program DesignDiscussion and Analysis

This CD&A describes our executive compensation philosophy, the Compensation Committee's process for setting executive compensation, the elements of our compensation program, the factors the committee considered when setting executive compensation in 2015, and how the company's results affected incentive payouts for 2015.

Say on Pay Results for 2015

At last year's annual meeting, more than 98 percent of the shares cast voted in favor of the company's Say on Pay proposal on executive compensation. Management and the Compensation Committee view this vote as supportive of the company's overall approach toward executive compensation.

Our Philosophy on Compensation

At Lilly, we aimour mission is to discover, develop, and acquire innovative new therapies—make medicines that make a real difference for patients and deliver clear value for payers.help people live longer, healthier, more active lives. In order to accomplish this goal, we must continually improve productivity in all that we do. To achieve these challenging goals,our mission, we must attract, engage, and retain highly-talented individuals who are committed to the company’scompany's core values of integrity, excellence, and respect for people. Our compensation programs are designed to help us achieve these goals while balancing the long-term interests of our customers and shareholders.

Objectives
Our compensation and benefits programs are based on the following objectives:

Reflect both individual and company performance. We reinforce a high-performance culture by linking pay with individual performance and company performance. As employees assume greater responsibilities, the proportion of total compensation based on company performance and shareholder returns increases. We perform an annual review to ensure the programs provide incentive to deliver long-term, sustainable business results while discouraging excessive risk-taking or other adverse behaviors.
Executive Compensation Philosophy:
Individual and company performance
Long-term focus
Consideration of both internal relativity and competitive pay
Efficient and egalitarian
• Appropriate risk mitigation
Reflect individual and company performance. We link employees’ pay to individual and company performance.
— As employees assume greater responsibilities, a greater portion of their pay is linked to company performance and shareholder returns through increased participation in equity programs.
— We seek to deliver above-market compensation given top-tier individual and company performance, but below-market compensation where individual performance falls short of expectations or company performance lags the industry.
Our 2012 incentive programs used a combination of internal corporate financial goals and a pipeline metric (annual bonus), relative EPS growth as measured against the expected performance of our peer companies (PA), and total shareholder return (TSR) (defined to include appreciation plus dividends) measured against stock price goals (SVA). We design our programs with clear targets, so that employees can understand how their efforts affect their pay.
We seek to balance the objectives of pay-for-performance and employee retention. Even during downturns in company performance, the program should continue to motivate and engage successful, high-achieving employees.
Foster a long-term focus. In our industry, long-term focus is critical to successAttract and is consistentretain talented employees.Compensation opportunities should be competitive with our goal of retaining highly-talented employees as they build their careers. A competitive benefits program including a defined benefit pension aids retention. As employees progress to higher levels of the organization, a greater portion of compensation is tied to long-term performance through our equity programs.
Provide compensation consistent withpeer group and reflect the level of job responsibilityimpact and responsibilities. Retention of talent is an important factor in the market for pharmaceutical talent. We seek internal pay relativity, meaning that pay differences among jobs should be commensurate with differences in job responsibilitydesign of our compensation and impact. In addition, the compensation committee compares the company’s programs with a peer group of global pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies with whom we compete for talent.benefit programs.

Provide efficient and egalitarian compensationImplement broad-based programs.. We seek to deliver superior long-term shareholder returns and to share with employees the value created in a cost-effective manner. While the amount of compensation reflects differences in job responsibilities, geographies, and marketplace considerations,paid to employees varies, the overall structure of our compensation and benefitsbenefit programs is broadly similar across the organization.organization to encourage and reward all employees who contribute to our success.
Appropriately mitigate risk. The compensation committee reviews the company’s compensation policies and practices annually and works with management to ensure that program design does not inadvertently create inappropriate incentives.

Consider shareholder input.input. In establishing 2012Management and the Compensation Committee consider the results of our annual Say on Pay vote and other sources of shareholder feedback when designing compensation the committee considered the shareholder vote in 2011 on the compensation paid to named executive officers—more than 88 percent in favor. The committee viewed this vote as supportive of the company’s overall approach to executive compensation. The shareholder vote in 2012 also confirmed this view with an overall approval of greater than 93 percent. We communicate directly with shareholders on executive compensation matters.and benefit programs.


Setting
P28



Compensation Committee's Processes and Analyses

Process for setting compensation
The compensation committeeCompensation Committee considers several factors to set compensation that meets company objectives. Among those considerations are:the following in determining executive compensation:

Assessment of the executive's individual performance and contribution. Individual performance is a major factor in determining compensation.

23



CEO: The independent directors, under the direction of the lead director, meet with the CEO at the beginning of theeach year to agree upon the CEO’sCEO's performance objectives for the year. At the end of the year, the independent directors meet with the CEO and also in executive session to assess the CEO’s performance based on hisCEO's achievement of thethose objectives along with other factors, including contribution to the company’scompany's performance and ethics and integrity, and other leadership accomplishments. Thisintegrity. The year-end evaluation is shared with the CEO by the lead director and is used by the compensation committee in setting the CEO’sCEO's compensation for the followingnext year.
—For the other executive officers, the
Other Executive Officers ("EOs"): The committee receives individual performance assessments and compensation recommendations from the CEO and also exercises its judgment based on the board’sBoard's knowledge and its interactions with the executive officers. As with the CEO, an executive officer’sEOs. Each other EO's performance assessment is based on his or her achievement of objectives established between the executive officersuch EO and the CEO contribution toat the company’s performance, ethics and integrity, andstart of the year as well as other leadership attributes and accomplishments.factors.

Assessment of company performance. The committeeCompensation Committee considers company performance measures in two ways:
In establishing total compensation ranges, the committee uses as a reference the performance of the company and the public companies in its peer group with respect to revenue, EPS, return on assets, and one- and five-year TSR.
The committee establishes specific company performance goals that determine payouts under the company’s cash and equity incentive programs.
As a factor in establishing potential compensation for the coming year, the committee considers overall company performance during the prior year across a variety of metrics.
To determine payouts under the cash and equity incentive programs, the committee establishes specific company performance goals related to revenue, earnings per share (EPS), progress of our pipeline portfolio, and stock price growth.

Peer-group analysis. The committee reviewsuses peer-group data as a market check for compensation decisions, but does not baseuse this data as the sole basis for its compensation targets on peer-group data only.targets. The company does not target a specific position within the range of market data.

Input from an independent compensation consultant concerning executive pay. The role of the independent compensation consultant is described in more detail under "Compensation Committee Matters" that follows the CD&A.
Overall competitiveness. The committee uses aggregated market data as a reference point to ensure that executive compensation is competitive within the broad middle range of comparative pay at peer companies when the company achieves the targeted performance levels. The committee does not target a specific position within the range of market data.
Individual competitiveness. The pay of individual executives is
Compensation
Considerations:
• Individual performance
• Company performance
• Peer-group analysis
• Internal relativity
      compared with market pay if the jobs are sufficiently similar to make the comparison meaningful. The individual’s pay is driven primarily by individual and company performance and internal relativity; the peer-group data is used as a market check to ensure that individual pay remains within the broad middle range of peer-group pay. The committee does not target a specific position within the range.
TheCompetitive pay assessment
Our peer group for 2012 compensation decisions included Abbott Laboratories; Amgen Inc.; AstraZeneca plc; Baxter International, Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Genzyme Corporation (prior to its acquisition by Sanofi-Aventis); GlaxoSmithKline plc; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis AG; Pfizer Inc.; Sanofi-Aventis; and Takeda Pharmaceuticals Company. The committee reviews the peer group for appropriateness at least every three years, and approved the current peer group in 2010. The peeris comprised of companies are direct competitors for our products,that directly compete with us, operate in a similar business model, and employ people with the unique skills required to operate an established biopharmaceutical company. TheIn selecting the peer group, the committee also considers companies' market capcaps and revenue as measures of size.size, and selects a peer group whose median market cap and revenues are broadly similar to Lilly. The committee reviews the peer group at least every three years. The group includes: Abbott, Abbvie, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. With the exception of Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Pfizer, peer companies were no greater than three times our size with regard to both measures. The committee included Johnson & Johnson and Pfizerthese three companies despite their size because boththey compete directly with Lilly, forhave similar business models, and seek to hire from the same pool of management and scientific talent.
CEO In the aggregate, the company’s total compensation. To provide further assurance to NEOs, when reviewed at the end of independence,2014, was in the compensation for the CEO is developed based upon a recommendation from the committee’s independent consultant, with limited support from company staff. The consultant prepares analyses showing competitive CEO compensation amongmiddle range of the peer group for the individual elements of compensation and total direct compensation. Typically, the consultant develops a range of recommendations for any change in the CEO’s base salary, annual cash incentive target, equity grant value, and equity mix. The CEO has no prior knowledge of the recommendations and takes no part in the recommendations, committee discussions, or decisions.
group.

Executive Compensation for 2012
Overview
In setting target compensation for 2012, the committee reviewed 2011 individual and company performance and peer-group data as discussed above, and also considered expected competitive trends in executive pay. That review included:

24P29



Components of Our Compensation
Company
Our executive compensation has three components: (1) base salary; (2) an annual cash bonus, which is calculated based on company revenue, EPS, and the progress of the pipeline relative to internal targets; and (3) two different forms of equity incentives: (i) Performance Awards ("PAs") - equity awards vesting over three years, with a performance. In 2011, component measuring the company's two-year growth in earnings per share ("EPS") relative to the expected peer group growth followed by a service-vesting period; and (ii) Shareholder Value Awards ("SVAs") - performance-based equity awards that pay out based on company stock price growth over a three-year period, followed by a one-year holding period. Executives also receive the company performedbenefits package, described below under "Other Compensation Practices and Information - Employee Benefits".

Adjustments to reported financial results
The Compensation Committee has authority to adjust the reported revenue and EPS on which incentive compensation payouts are determined in order to eliminate the upper tierdistorting effect of unusual income or expense items that may occur during a given year that impact year-over-year growth percentages or to improve comparability to peer companies. The Committee considers the peer groupadjustments approved by the Audit Committee in one-year TSR, in the middle tier in revenue growth, and in the lower tier in adjustedreporting non-GAAP EPS and five-year TSR. Company performance against corporate operating goals was slightly above target for adjusted non-GAAP EPS growth and slightly below target for returnother adjustments, based on assets. Growth in adjusted revenue, adjusted non-GAAP EPS, net cash flow, operating income per employee, and pipeline progress exceeded corporate goals.
Individual performance. In assessing the 2011 performance of executive officers, the independent directors (for the CEO) and the compensation committee (with regard to all executive officers) considered the company’s and the executive officer’s accomplishment of objectives establishedguidelines approved at the beginning of the yearperformance period. Further details on the adjustments for 2015 and their own subjective assessmentthe rationale for making these adjustments are set forth in Appendix A, "Summary of Adjustments Related to the executive officer’s performance.
In assessing Dr. Lechleiter's performance, the independent directors noted that under Dr. Lechleiter's leadership in 2011, the company:
Delivered above-plan growth in revenue, EPS,Annual Bonus and cash flow.
Achieved the infrastructure reduction goals set in 2009Performance Award." For ease of elimination of 5,500 positions and reduction of $1 billion in costs from the 2009 plan, excluding acquisitions and strategic additions in Japan and key emerging markets.
Continued to advance the product pipeline, with 11 molecules in late-stage development.

The directors also noted Dr. Lechleiter's strong leadership in establishing and executing the company's strategy to weather the period of patent expirations through 2014 and return to long-term growth following 2014. Dr. Lechleiter continued to set a clear tonereference, throughout the organization emphasizing integrity, ethics, compliance,CD&A and quality. In addition, he continued his effective public advocacy on behalf of the company, especiallyother compensation disclosures we refer simply to "revenue" and "EPS" but we encourage you to review the information in Appendix A to understand the areas of FDAadjustments from GAAP revenue and patent reform, and oversaw smooth transitions of two critical  leadership roles in the organization.

Dr. Lechleiter requestedEPS that his base salary and incentive targets not be increased for 2012, as most employees worldwide did not receive increases. Despite his strong performance, the committee agreed to Dr. Lechleiter’s request and his 2012 target compensation remained the same as 2011.were approved.

1.Mr. Rice assumed expanded operational responsibilities. He demonstrated effective leadership during the implementation of the global financial shared services centers, which will enable the company to streamline and standardize key global financial operations. Mr. Rice also showed continued strong financial stewardship and oversight of investor relations.Base Salary

Base salaries are reviewed and established annually, and may also be adjusted upon promotion, following a change in job responsibilities, or to maintain market competitiveness. Salaries are based on each person's level of contribution, responsibility, and expertise, along with peer group data.

Base salary increases are established based upon a corporate budget for salary increases, which is set considering company performance over the prior year, expected company performance for the following year, and general external trends. In setting salaries, the Compensation Committee seeks to retain, motivate, and reward successful performers while maintaining affordability within the company's business plan.

2.Dr. Lundberg's leadership was a key factor in very strong pipeline progress in 2011. He enhanced Lilly Research Laboratories' focus on achieving key pipeline milestones, made strong gains in employee engagement scores, and recruited key scientific talent.Annual Bonus


Mr. Armitage is broadly recognized for his critical role in helping to reform the U.S. patent laws to better protect innovators, culminating in the America Invents Act of 2011. He also led the company to excellent results across a broad spectrum of Hatch-Waxman litigation. Mr. Armitage retired from the company on December 31, 2012.

Mr. Conterno provided key leadership to improve the company’s competitive position in markets for our diabetes business products with the successful consummation of the Boehringer-Ingelheim partnership and the termination of the Amylin commercial partnership and settlement of related issues. He collaborated effectively with manufacturing personnel to improve gross margins on these products. His organization reported high employee-engagement scores and strong commitment to ethics and compliance.
PayThe Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan ("Bonus Plan") is designed to align employees' individual goals with the company's financial plans and pipeline objectives for the year. The bonus is based on company performance in three areas over the course of the year, relative to peer group. The company’s total compensation to executive officers, in the aggregate, for 2011 was in the broad middle range of the peer group.


25



The committee determined the following:
Program elements. The 2012 program consisted of base salary, a cash incentive bonus,internal targets: (1) revenue; (2) EPS; and two forms of performance-based equity grants: PAs and SVAs. Executives also received the company employee benefits package. This total compensation program balances the mix of cash and equity compensation, the mix of current and longer-term compensation, the mix of internally and externally focused goals, and the security of foundational benefits in a way that furthers the compensation objectives discussed above.
Targets. The company generally maintained pay ranges and a balance of pay elements similar to 2011. The committee believes this overall program continues to provide cost-effective delivery of total compensation that:
encourages employee retention and engagement by delivering competitive cash and equity components
maintains a strong link to company performance and shareholder returns through a balanced equity incentive program without encouraging excessive risk-taking
—maintains appropriate internal pay relativity
provides opportunity for total pay within the broad middle range of expected peer-group pay when company performance is comparable to that of our peers.

The graph below shows the balance of fixed and performance-based target compensation determined by the committee and actual compensation received for 2012 bonus. The target compensation reflects decisions made by the compensation committee for 2012. This includes the 2012-2013 PA and the 2012-2014 SVA. Actual compensation includes base salary and cash incentive bonus earned in 2012 and the equity awards that completed their performance periods in 2012, namely, the 2011-2012 PA and the 2010-2012 SVA.(3) pipeline progress.

2012 TargetCompany performance goals and Actualindividual bonus targets are set at the beginning of each year, and actual bonuses can range from 0 to 200% of each individual's bonus target. In establishing the performance goals, the Compensation (millions)
Committee references the annual operating plan. Each year, the Compensation Committee reviews the relative weighting for each of the factors. The 2015 weightings remained unchanged from the prior year:
GoalWeighting
Revenue performanceFixedPerformance basedOne-time25%
EPS performance50%
Pipeline progress
Base salaryBonusPASVARSU upon Hire
CashLong-term equity25%

Actual base salary andBased on this weighting, the company bonus amounts are shown in the “Summary Compensation Table.” The PA payout for 2011-2012 performance period paid out at 50 percent of target,multiple is calculated as shown in the “Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2012” table. The SVA payout for 2010-2012 performance was 140 percent of target, as shown in the “Options Exercised and Stock Vested in 2012” table. Additionally, the graph above includes the vesting of a portion of restricted stock units (RSUs) that Dr. Lundberg received upon joining the company.follows:


26P30



(0.25 x revenue multiple) + (0.50 x EPS multiple) + (0.25 x pipeline multiple)
Base Salary                                                                                                     
Most employees around the globe did not receive base salary increases for 2012 as part of the company's efforts to manage costs during this period of patent expirations. As a result, executive officers' 2012 salaries remained unchanged from 2011.
Annualized Base Salary (thousands)
Name20112012Percentage Increase
Dr. Lechleiter$1,500
$1,500
0%
Mr. Rice$990
$990
0%
Dr. Lundberg$979
$979
0%
Mr. Armitage$841
$841
0%
Mr. Conterno$670
$670
0%
= company bonus multiple

Cash Incentive Bonuses
The company’s annual cash bonus program is designed to align employees’ individual goals with the company’s financial plans and pipeline delivery objectives for the current year. For executive officers, cash incentive bonuses are made under the Executive Officer Incentive Plan (EOIP), which establishes a maximum annual incentive bonus and grants the committee discretion to reduce the bonus from the maximum. Under the EOIP, the maximum bonuses are based on non-GAAP net income (as defined under “Adjustments to Reported Results” below) for the year. For the chief executive officer, chief operating officer (if any), and executive chairman (if any), the maximum is 0.3 percent of non-GAAP net income. For other executive officers, the maximum is 0.15 percent of non-GAAP net income. No payments can be made unless the company has a positive non-GAAP net income for the year. The committee has discretion to reduce, but not increase, the annual incentive bonus.
Bonus Weighting:
• 25% adjusted revenue goals
• 50% adjusted non-GAAP EPS goals
• 25% pipeline progress
2012 Targets:
• $22.3 billion adjusted revenue
• $3.18 adjusted non-GAAP EPS
• Achievement of pipeline milestones
Multiples for performance goals can range from 0-2.0.

The payout is calculated as follows:

bonus multiple x individual bonus target x base salary earnings = payout

In order to preserve tax deductibility of bonus payouts, EOs are subject to the Executive Officer Incentive Plan (EOIP), which sets further limits on the allowable bonus amounts. Under the EOIP, the maximum annual bonus allowable is calculated based on non-GAAP net income (generally described in "Adjustments to Reported Results" in Appendix A to this proxy statement) for the year. For the CEO, the maximum bonus award is 0.3 percent of non-GAAP net income. For other EOs, the maximum amount is 0.15 percent of non-GAAP net income. EOs will not receive any annual cash incentive payments unless the company has a positive non-GAAP net income for the year.

Once the maximum payout for an EO is determined, the Compensation Committee has the discretion to reduce (but not increase) the amount of the bonus to be paid. In exercising this discretion, the committee intends to generally to award executive officersEOs the lesser of (i) the bonuses they would have received under the bonus planBonus Plan or (ii) the EOIP maximum amounts. Each year the committee establishes target bonuses for the executive officers based on a percentage of salary. At the end of the year, the committee will reduce the bonuses from the EOIP maximum based on the company’s achievement relative to performance-based goals (as described below) set by the committee in a manner consistent with the committee’s administration of the bonus plan. Accordingly, actual payouts under the EOIP are expected to be less than the EOIP maximum amounts. The committee retains further discretion to reduce the bonuses below the results that would have been yielded under the bonus plan.bonuses.

3.Equity Incentives
All other management employees worldwide, as well as a substantial number of nonmanagement employees in the U.S., participate in the bonus plan. Under the plan, participants’ targets and company goals are set at the beginning of each year. Bonus payouts range from zero to 200 percent of target amounts depending on the company’s performance in regard to these goals. At the end of the performance period, the committee has discretion to adjust a bonus payout downward (but not upward) from the amount yielded by the formula.

The committee considered the following when establishing the 2012 awards:
Bonus targets. Consistent with our compensation objectives, as employees assume greater responsibilities, more of their pay is linked to company performance. Bonus targets (expressed as a percentage of base salary) were based on job responsibilities, internal relativity, individual performance, and peer-group data. For each named executive officer, the committee maintained the same bonus targets as 2011.
Bonus Targets (as a percentage of base salary)
 Name20112012
 Dr. Lechleiter140%
140%
 Mr. Rice90%
90%
 Dr. Lundberg90%
90%
 Mr. Armitage80%
80%
 Mr. Conterno75%
75%
  
Company performance measures. A bonus program’s goals should be challenging, yet achievable, in order to motivate and retain employees. Since 2011, performance goals under our bonus plan are tied directly to our internal annual operating goals. The committee established 2012 corporate goals with a 25 percent weighting on adjusted revenue goals, 50 percent weighting on adjusted non-GAAP EPS goals, and 25 percent weighting on our pipeline progress.
In establishing the 2012 goals, the committee used the company’s 2012 annual operating plan to set goals of $22.3 billion in adjusted revenue, $3.18 in adjusted non-GAAP EPS, and measures of both the output and sustainability of the pipeline. Payouts were determined by this formula:

27




(0.25 x adjusted revenue multiple) + (0.50 x adjusted non-GAAP EPS multiple) + (0.25 x pipeline multiple)
= bonus multiple

bonus multiple x bonus target x base salary earnings = payout

The committee can always lower (but not increase) payouts to individual executive officers when individual performance goals are not achieved.

2012 adjusted revenue, adjusted non-GAAP EPS, and pipeline multiples are illustrated by this chart:
              1.10        
            Target        
                        
Adjusted Revenue
Multiple
                       
 0.0   0.5   1.0   1.5   2.0
Adjusted Revenue $19,818   $21,033   $22,252   $23,461   $24,676
                   1.68   
                      
                        
                        
Adjusted Non-GAAP EPS Multiple 0.0   0.5   1.0   1.5   2.0
Adjusted Non-GAAP EPS $2.74   $2.96   $3.18   $3.40   $3.62
               1.20       
                      
                        
Pipeline
multiple
                       
 0.0   0.5   1.0   1.5   2.0
Pipeline
score
 1.0   2.0   3.0   4.0   5.0


2012 adjusted revenue of $22.5 billion exceeded the goal of $22.3 billion, and resulted in an adjusted revenue multiple of 1.10. 2012 adjusted non-GAAP EPS of $3.48 exceeded the goal of $3.18, resulting in an adjusted non-GAAP EPS multiple of 1.68.

The pipeline output and sustainability metrics were set consistent with corporate goals. The science and technology committee of the board of directors assessed the company’s progress toward achieving these goals at 3.4 (on a scale of 1 to 5), noting 11 product approvals versus a goal of 10, andcompany grants two NMEs entering into Phase III versus a goal of 1 NME. Additionally, 75 percent of pipeline projects met their milestone goals, which was in the target range of 70 to 80 percent. The science and technology committee also performed a subjective assessment of the quality of the pipeline. Based on the recommendation of the science and technology committee, the compensation committee certified a pipeline score of 3.4, resulting in a pipeline multiple of 1.20.

Combined, the revenue, EPS, and pipeline progress multiples yielded a bonus multiple of 1.42.
(0.25 x 1.10) + (0.50 x 1.68) + (0.25 x 1.20) = 1.42 bonus multiple

Equity Incentives—Total Equity Program
We employ two formstypes of equity incentives granted under the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan:to EOs - PAs and SVAs. These incentivesThe PAs are designed to focus company leaders on multi-year operational performance as well asrelative to peer companies and the SVAs align earned compensation with long-term growth in shareholder value. In 2012,The Compensation Committee has the company granteddiscretion to adjust downward (but not upward) any executive officer's equity incentives to approximately 15 percent of our employee population. For executive officers, SVAs pay out inaward payout from the amount yielded by the applicable formula.

Performance Awards
PAs vest over three years. Potential shares that haveare earned based on achieving EPS growth targets over a three-year performancetwo-year period followed by a one-year holding requirement; PAs have aan additional 13-month service-vesting period in the form of restricted stock unites ("RSUs"). The growth rate targets are set relative to the median expected EPS growth for the peer group. These awards do not accumulate dividends during the two-year performance period, and pay out in RSUs that vest one year afterbut do accumulate dividends during the performanceservice-vesting period. The following chart shows the performance and holding periods for PA and SVA grants over time:

28



Performance and Holding Periods for PAs and SVAs
2010201120122013201420152016  
         
2010-2011 PA       
 2011-2012 PA    Performance Period
  2012-2013 PA   Restricted Stock Units
   2013-2014 PA    
         
2010-2012 SVA    Performance Period
 2011-2013 SVA   Required Holding Period
  2012-2014 SVA    
   2013-2015 SVA   
Target grant values. For 2012, the committee set the aggregate target values for the named executive officers based on internal relativity, individual performance, and aggregated peer-group data. Dr. Lundberg's target grant value was increased, reflecting his leadership in helping the company achieve key pipeline milestones. The target grant values for the remaining named executive officers were maintained. Consistent with the company's compensation objectives, individuals at higher levels received a greater proportion of total compensation in the form of equity. The committee determined that for members of senior management, a 50/50 split between PAs and SVAs appropriately balances the company financial
Equity Compensation:
• Performance metrics of growth in non-GAAP EPS and share price are objective and align with shareholder interests
• Target grant values set based on internal relativity, performance, and peer data
performance and shareholder equity return metrics of the two programs. Target values for the 2011 and 2012 equity grants for the named executive officers were as follows:
Target Grant Values (thousands)
Name2011-2012 PA2012-2013 PA2011-2013 SVA2012-2014 SVAPercentage Increase (total)
Dr. Lechleiter$3,750$3,750$3,750$3,7500%
Mr. Rice$1,900$1,900$1,900$1,9000%
Dr. Lundberg$1,375$1,500$1,375$1,5009%
Mr. Armitage$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,0000%
Mr. Conterno$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,0000%
Equity Incentives—Performance Awards
PAs provide employees with shares of company stock if certain company performance goals are achieved. The awards are structured as a schedule of potential shares earned based on cumulative, compounded annual growth in adjusted non-GAAP EPS over a two-year period. The growth rates are based on expected peer group adjusted non-GAAP EPS growth for the period. Possible payouts for the 2012-2013 PA range from 0 to 150 percent of the target depending on adjusted non-GAAP EPS growth over the performance period. No dividends are accrued or paid on the awards during the performance period.
Performance Awards:
• Target two-year ajdusted non-GAAP EPS growth for 2012-2013 PA is 3.3% annually, slightly above median expected peer-group performance
• Payout in RSUs for executive officers vests after one year
Company performance measure. For the 2012 grants, the committee once again established the performance measure as adjusted non-GAAP EPS growth. The committeeCompensation Committee believes adjusted non-GAAP EPS growth is an effective motivatormeasure of operational performance because it is closely linked to shareholder value, is broadly communicated to the public, is easily understood by employees, and allows for objective comparisons to peer-group performance. The target compounded growth percentage of 3.3 percent per year slightly exceeded the median expected adjusted non-GAAP EPS growth of companies in our peer group, based on investment analysts’ published estimates. Accordingly, consistentConsistent with our compensation objectives, company performance exceeding the expected peer-group median will result in above-target payouts, while company performance lagging the expected peer-group median will result in below-target payouts. Possible payouts range from 0 to 150 percent of the target depending on EPS growth over the performance period.

The measure of adjusted non-GAAP EPS used in the PA program differs from the adjusted non-GAAP EPS measure used in our annual bonus program in two ways. First, the bonus program measures adjusted non-GAAP EPS over a one-year period, while the PA program measures adjusted non-GAAPuses EPS over a

29



two-year period. Second, the target adjusted non-GAAP EPS goal in the bonus program is set with reference to internal goals that align to our internalannual operating plan for the year, while the target adjusted non-GAAP EPS goal in the PA program is set relative to expected growth rates foramong our peer group.

Potential payouts for 2012-2013 PAs are illustrated by the chart below:

P31

2012-2013 PA
    50% payout                  
   
                 
         Target       
                       
                       
Payout Multiple 0.00 0.50  0.75  1.00  1.25  1.50
Cumulative 2-Year Adjusted Non-GAAP EPS $4.41 $8.46  $8.86  $9.26  $9.67  $10.09+


Equity Incentives—Shareholder Value Awards
In 2007, the company replaced its stock option program with the SVA program. SVAs are structured as a schedule of potential shares of company stock that may be earned based on the company’sLilly's share price performance over a three-year period. SVAs have a three-year performance period and any shares paid out are subject to a one-year holding requirement. No dividends are accrued or paid on the awards during the performance period. PayoutsSVAs pay out above target if Lilly stock outperforms an expected compounded annual rate of return and below target if company stock underperforms that rate of return. The expected rate of return includes dividends and is based on the total three-year shareholder return ("TSR") that a reasonable investor would consider appropriate for investing in a basket of large-cap U.S. companies, as determined by the Compensation Committee. The target share price is based on this expected rate of return less the company’s dividend yield, applied to the starting share price. Executive officers receive no payout if TSR for the three-year period is zero or negative.

Possible payouts range from 0 to 140 percent of the target amount, depending on stock performance over the period. At

Pay for Performance

The mix of compensation for the endCEO and other NEOs reflects our desire to link executive compensation with company performance. As reflected in the charts below, a substantial portion of the target pay for all NEOs is performance-based. Both the annual bonus and equity payouts are contingent upon company performance, with the bonus factoring in performance over a one-year period, and equity compensation factoring in performance over a longer term (as described above under "Components of Our Compensation - 3. Equity Incentives").


2015 Target Total Compensation

Performance Review Process
In setting potential EO compensation for 2015, the Compensation Committee considered both individual and company performance during 2014.

2014 Individual EO Performance
A summary of the committee's review of the individual EOs is provided below:


P32



Dr. John Lechleiter: In accordance with the company's Corporate Governance Guidelines, the independent directors conducted a review of Dr. Lechleiter's performance during 2014, which was provided to the Compensation Committee during a private session. Under Dr. Lechleiter's leadership the company exceeded key financial targets and saw the successful approval and launch of three new products - Trulicity®, Jardiance® and Cyramza®. In addition, the company controlled operating expenses, while setting a clear strategic plan towards sustained growth. Dr. Lechleiter continued his effective leadership and public advocacy on behalf of the broader biopharmaceutical industry, via his key leadership roles in the U.S.-Japan Business Council and PhRMA, among other organizations. Dr. Lechleiter continued to set a strong cultural tone throughout the organization, consistently demonstrating honesty, integrity, and transparency in his internal and external interactions throughout a particularly challenging period of patent expirations.

Derica Rice: Mr. Rice demonstrated exemplary leadership by helping to navigate the company through a very challenging period of patent expirations of many of our major products, while maintaining strong performance of the global services organization. He played key roles in numerous business development activities, including the Novartis Animal Health acquisition, and strongly influenced the company's external research and development strategy.

Dr. Jan Lundberg: Dr. Lundberg led the research and development organization through one of its most productive years in recent history and played a key leadership role in portfolio prioritization.

Michael Harrington: Mr. Harrington provided outstanding leadership of the company’s legal division, and effectively managed a number of key legal matters throughout the year. He also excelled in building effective partnerships with the leadership teams of our various business areas.

Enrique Conterno: Mr. Conterno drove above-plan revenues and earnings and increased Lilly’s market share in the diabetes therapeutic area. Through his leadership, the Lilly Diabetes business achieved three product approvals and two launches during the year.

The information in the section below reflects target total compensation for executive officers for 2015. The actual payouts made to the NEOs in the form of the 2015 annual bonus and equity awards that vested in 2015 are summarized in the next section, under "2015 Compensation Payouts".

Rationale for Changes to NEO Target Compensation
The committee established 2015 target total compensation opportunities for each executive based on the executive’s 2014 performance, internal relativity, and peer-group data. The committee determined an increase to Dr. Lechleiter’s total compensation was appropriate given overall company results and his strong leadership over several years. The committee decided his increase should be delivered entirely in performance-based compensation, leaving his base salary unchanged from prior years but increasing his bonus target and the target value of his equity. For Dr. Lundberg, the committee believed his target cash compensation was appropriate but increased his target equity award reflecting the strategic importance and long-term impact of the R&D organization’s success. Messrs. Rice, Harrington and Conterno received salary increases reflecting their contributions over time and aligned with the company’s annual increase guidelines. In light of strong performance since assuming the General Counsel role, Mr. Harrington also received an increase to his equity.

Resulting Compensation Targets

Base Salary
The following table outlines salary increases, if any, for each executive approved by the committee in 2015. Each executive's actual base salary earned during 2015 is reflected in the "Summary Compensation Table" in the "Executive Compensation" section of the proxy that follows.


P33



Name2014 Annual Base Salary2015 Annual Base SalaryIncrease (effective March 1, 2015)
Dr. Lechleiter$1,500,000$1,500,000
Mr. Rice$1,019,700$1,050,3003%
Dr. Lundberg$1,007,855$1,007,855
Mr. Harrington$765,000$788,0003%
Mr. Conterno$682,890$710,2054%

Annual Bonus Targets
Based on a review of internal relativity, peer data, and individual performance, the committee decided to maintain the same 2014 bonus targets for all NEOs in 2015, except Dr. Lechleiter. Based on the rationale described above, Dr. Lechleiter's target was increased. Bonus targets are shown in the table below as a percentage of base salary:
Name2014 Bonus Target2015 Bonus Target
Dr. Lechleiter140%150%
Mr. Rice90%90%
Dr. Lundberg90%90%
Mr. Harrington75%75%
Mr. Conterno75%75%


Total Equity Program - Target Grant Values
For 2015 equity grants, the committee set the total target values for NEOs based on internal relativity, individual performance, and peer-group data. The committee determined that for all NEOs a 50/50 split between PAs and SVAs would continue to appropriately balance company financial performance with shareholder return. Total target values for the 2014 and 2015 equity grants to the NEOs were as follows:
Name2014 Total Equity2015 Total Equity
Dr. Lechleiter$9,000,000$10,000,000
Mr. Rice$3,800,000$3,800,000
Dr. Lundberg$3,000,000$3,400,000
Mr. Harrington$1,900,000$2,300,000
Mr. Conterno$2,000,000$2,000,000

Performance Goals for 2015 Incentive Programs

2015 Annual Bonus Goals
The Compensation Committee established the company performance targets for 2015 at the targets specified in the company's 2015 corporate operating plan approved by the Board of Directors in 2014.

Performance Awards – 2015-2016 PA
In January 2015, the committee established an EPS growth target based on investment analysts’ peer group estimates at that time. However, the first two months of 2015 saw an extraordinarily rapid and steep decline in the value of several currencies against the U.S. dollar, significantly driving down the median of analysts' growth expectations for our peer group.  As a result, in March 2015, less than 90 days into the two-year performance period, the committee has discretionreset the target at one percent compounded annually to adjust an award payout downward (but not upward)reflect revised investment analysts' estimates for the peer group.

Possible payouts for the 2015-2016 PA range from 0 to 150 percent of the amount yielded bytarget, as illustrated in the formula. The SVA program delivers equity compensation that is strongly linked to three-year total shareholder return, which aligns employee interests with those of shareholders.chart below:

P34



Shareholder Value Awards:
    50% payout                  
   
                 
         Target       
                       
                       
Payout Multiple 0.00 0.50  0.75  1.00  1.25  1.50
Cumulative 2-Year EPS$3.03 $5.61  $5.88  $6.15  $6.43 $6.71+
EPS Annual Growth Rate   (5.00)%  (2.00)%  1.00%  4.00%  7.00%

Shareholder Value Awards – 2015-2017 SVA
• Three-year performance period
• Target is determined by applying an expected three-year rate of return for peer group companies
• Shares earned by executive officers must be held one year
Company performance measure. For purposes of establishing the stock price target for the SVAs, the 2012 grants, the SVA will pay above target if company stock outperforms an expected compounded annual rate of return for peer group companies and below target if company stock underperforms that rate of return. The expected rate of return is based on the total return that a reasonable investor would consider appropriate for investing in a basket of large-cap U.S. companies (based on input from external money managers). The resulting share price payout schedule was developed using this expected rate of return (ten percent) , less the company’s dividend yield applied to the starting share price. Executive officers receive no payout if TSR for the three-year period is zero or negative.
The starting price for the 2012-2014 SVAs was $38.64$69.13 per share, representing the average of the closing prices of company stock for all trading days in November and December 2011.2014. The futuretarget ending share price that would pay out the target number of sharesrange was established based on the expected annual rate of return for large-cap companies (8 percent), less an assumed dividend yield of 5.1 percent.2.89 percent, rounded up to the nearest $0.05. The ending price to determine payouts will be the average of the closing prices of company stock for all trading days in November and December 2014.2017. The award is designed to deliver no payout to EOs if the shareholder return (including projected dividends) is zero or negative. The target share price growth of 5.1 percent per year is comparable to a compounded annual total shareholder return of 7.9 percent. Possible payouts based on share price ranges are illustrated in the grid below.

Ending Stock PriceLess than$63.02$63.02-$68.72 $68.73-$74.41 $74.72-$80.29$80.30-$86.17$86.18-$92.04 Greater than $92.04
Compounded Annual Share Price Growth Rate (excluding dividends)Less than(3.0%)(3.0%)-(0.2)%(0.2%)-2.5%2.5%-5.1%5.1%-7.6%7.6% - 10.0%Greater than 10.0%
Percent of Target0%40%60%80%100%120%140%

2015 Compensation Payouts

The information in this section reflects the amounts paid to NEOs for the 2015 annual bonus and payouts from equity awards for which the relevant performance period ended in 2015.

2015 Company Performance
For 2015, the company slightly exceeded its revenue target with annual revenues of $20.6 billion after adjustments as described in Appendix A. The company substantially exceeded its EPS target, with EPS of $3.49 after adjustments as described in Appendix A. The company also made significant progress on its pipeline, meeting or exceeding most targets for pipeline progress, highlighted by regulatory approval for necitumumab, along with 10 other new approvals, indications, or line extensions during 2015.

Bonus Award for 2015
The company's 2015 performance compared to targets for revenue, EPS, and pipeline progress, as well as the resulting bonus multiple, are illustrated below.

 2015 Corporate TargetAdjusted ResultsMultiple¹
Revenue$20.4 billion$20.6 billion1.06
EPS$3.19$3.492.00
Pipeline score33.71.37
Resulting Bonus Multiple1.61

P35




¹Performance goal multiples are capped at 2.0.



The 2012-2014 SVA will be paid outScience and Technology Committee assessed the company's progress toward achieving product pipeline goals at 3.7 (on a scale of 1 to executive officers according to the grid below in early 2015:
2012-2014 SVA
Ending Stock PriceLess than $32.77 $32.77-$37.46 $37.47-$42.14 $42.15-$44.64$44.65-$47.14$47.15-$49.64 Greater than $49.64
Compounded Annual Share Price Growth Rate (excluding dividends)Less than (5.3%)(5.3%)-(1.0%)(1.0%)-2.9%2.9%-4.9%4.9%-6.9%6.9% -8.7%Greater than 8.7%
Percent of Target0%40%60%80%100%120%140%
5) including:

Restricted Stock Units1 new molecular entity (NME) product approval consistent with goal, and 10 other significant approvals versus a goal of 6.
No one-time RSUs were awarded to any5 NMEs entering into Phase III versus a goal of 2 entrants.
60 percent of preclinical pipeline projects and 66 percent of clinical projects met their delivery reliability goals, compared with targets of 60 and 75 percent, respectively.
Subjective assessment of the named executive officers in 2012.quality of the pipeline, considering many factors -- awarded a score of 5, recognizing another record-setting year for innovation.

Stock OptionsBased on the recommendation of the Science and Technology Committee, the Compensation Committee certified a pipeline score of 3.7, resulting in a pipeline multiple of 1.37.

Combined, the revenue, EPS, and pipeline progress multiples yielded a bonus multiple of 1.61.
(0.25 x 1.06) + (0.50 x 2.00) + (0.25 x 1.37) = 1.61 bonus multiple

The company stopped granting stock optionsbonus amounts paid to NEOs for 2015 are reflected in 2007. the "Summary Compensation Table" below.

Equity Award Payouts in 2015

2014-2015 Performance Award
The stock options grantedtarget cumulative EPS for the 2014-2015 PA was set in 2002 expiredJanuary 2014 reflecting expected industry growth of 7.6 percent each year. The company's two-year EPS growth decreased by 19.3%, reflecting the negative impact of multiple patent expirations.

The company's performance compared to targets (and the resulting multiple) for the 2014-2015 PA is reflected in 2012, and the charts below.


30P36



named executive officers who held them forfeited the awards having realized no value. These awards (and other expired stock options) were not replaced.

Adjustments to Reported Results
Consistent with past practice, the committee adjusted the results on which 2011-2012 PAs and the 2012 bonus were determined to eliminate the distorting effect of certain unusual income or expense items on year-over-year growth percentages. The adjustments are intended to:
align award payments with the underlying performance of the core business
avoid volatile, artificial inflation or deflation of awards due to unusual items in either the award year or the previous (comparator) year
eliminate certain counterproductive short-term incentives—for example, incentives to refrain from acquiring new technologies, to defer disposing of underutilized assets, or to defer settling legacy legal proceedings to protect current bonus payments.

To assure the integrity of the adjustments, the committee establishes adjustment guidelines at the beginning of the year. These guidelines are generally consistent with the company guidelines for reporting non-GAAP earnings to the investment community, which are reviewed by the audit committee of the board. The adjustments apply equally to income and expense items. The compensation committee reviews all adjustments and retains downward discretion, i.e., discretion to reduce compensation below the amounts that are yielded by the adjustment guidelines.

Adjustments for 2012 Bonus Plan. For the 2012 bonus calculations, the committee made the following adjustments to reported revenue and EPS: 
Neutralized the impact of the early payment by Bristol-Myers Squibb of Amylin's exenatide revenue-sharing obligations by (i) eliminating the income recognized on the early payment and (ii) adjusting planned revenue and EPS for exenatide to include the planned amounts for the portion of the year after the early payment.
Eliminated the EPS impact of significant asset impairments and restructuring charges.
Made additional reductions to "as reported" revenue and non-GAAP EPS in connection with the timing of certain pricing actions that occurred earlier than anticipated. Because the increases had occurred at the time the targets were being established, management recommended, and the committee agreed, to adjust the incremental revenue and EPS out of the 2012 results for bonus purposes.
Neutralized the impact of the delayed enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, by adding the expected amount of the delayed 2012 tax benefits to 2012 EPS, and increasing the 2013 bonus EPS goal by the same amount to offset the benefit to be received in 2013.

Reconciliations of these adjustments to our reported revenue and EPS are below.

2012
Revenue as reported ($ millions)$22,603.4
   Impact of certain pricing actions$(106.0)
   Impact of Amylin pro-rata revenue$(9.0)
Revenue—adjusted$22,488.4
EPS as reported$3.66
    Eliminate IPR&D charges for acquisitions and in-licensing transactions$0.00
    Eliminate asset impairments, restructuring, and other special charges (including Xigris® withdrawal)$0.16
    Eliminate impact of the early payment of Amylin financial obligation$(0.43)
Non-GAAP EPS$3.39
    Xigris withdrawal adjustment$(0.01)
    EPS impact of the timing of pricing actions$(0.06)
    Pro-rata portion of Amylin net income$0.09
    2012 R&D Tax Credit$0.07
Non-GAAP EPS—adjusted$3.48*
*Numbers may not add due to rounding

Adjustments for 2011-2012 PA. When the committee set EPS growth goals for the 2011-2012 PA, the termination of our exenatide alliance with Amylin and the associated revenue-sharing obligation was not contemplated and therefore, the 2011-2012 PA goals assumed ongoing net income from sales of exenatide. The committee decided to neutralize the impact of the early payment. In addition, although the company excluded the impact of the Xigris®

31



product withdrawal that occurred in 2011 in its published non-GAAP earnings, the committee chose to include the negative impact on sales and EPS for both 2011 and 2012 when determining EPS for purposes of paying the 2011-2012 PA.

For the 2011-2012NEOs, the number of shares subject to an additional 13-month service-vesting period under the 2014-2015 PA payout calculations,is reflected in the committee madetable below (this information is also included in footnote 5 to the following adjustments to reported EPS:
For 2012: (i) Eliminated"Outstanding Equity Awards" table in the income received from the early payment of the exenatide revenue-sharing obligation; (ii) Added back the planned income from exenatide for the portion of the year after the early payment;
For 2010 and 2011: Eliminated one-time accounting charges for acquired in-process research and development;
For 2010: Eliminated the impact of U.S. health care reform
For 2010, 2011, and 2012: Eliminated the impact of significant asset impairment and restructuring charges.

The adjustments were intended to align award payments more closely with underlying business growth trends and eliminate volatile swings (up or down) caused by the unusual items. This is demonstrated by the 2010, 2011, and 2012 adjustments:"Executive Compensation" section below):
EPS Percent Growth vs. Prior Years 
20%             
             
15%             
            
10%            
           
5%           
           
0%           
            EPS growth - as reported
-5%         
         EPS growth - adjusted non-GAAP
-10%         
          
-15%           
            
-20%            
             
-25%             
             
  2010 2011 2012    
NameTarget SharesRSUs Earned
Dr. Lechleiter92,19446,097
Mr. Rice38,92619,463
Dr. Lundberg30,73115,366
Mr. Harrington19,4639,732
Mr. Conterno20,48810,244

Reconciliations of these adjustments to our EPS and our published non-GAAP EPS are below.

20122011% Growth
2012 vs. 2011
2010% Growth
2011 vs. 2010
EPS as reported$3.66$3.90(6.2)%$4.58(14.8)%
Eliminate IPR&D charges for acquisitions and in-licensing transactions$0.23
$0.03
Eliminate asset impairments, restructuring and other special charges (including Xigris withdrawal)$0.16$0.29
$0.13
Eliminate income from early payment of Amylin financial obligation$(0.43)



Non-GAAP EPS$3.39$4.41(23.1)%$4.74(7.0)%
Health care reform adjustment

$0.24
Xigris withdrawal adjustment$(0.01)$(0.05)

Pro-rata portion of Amylin Net Income$0.09

Non-GAAP EPS—adjusted$3.47$4.36(20.4)%$4.98(12.4)%






Numbers reflected may not add due to rounding




Equity Incentive Grant Mechanics and Timing2013-2015 Shareholder Value Award
The committee approves target grant valuesstock price of $57.65 for equity incentives prior to the grant date. On2013-2015 SVA was set in January 2013 based on a beginning stock price of $48.43, which was the grant date, those values are converted to shares based on:
Theaverage closing price for Lilly stock for all trading days in November and December 2012. The ending stock price of company$83.74 represents stock onprice growth of approximately 73 percent over the grant date.relevant three-year period. The company's performance compared to target (and the resulting payout multiple) for the 2013-2015 SVA is shown below.


32P37



The same valuation methodology the company uses to determine the accounting expense of the grants under FASB ASC Topic 718.
The committee's procedureshares paid to NEOs during 2015 for the timing of equity grants assures that grant timing is not being manipulated for employee gain. The annual equity grant date for all eligible employees is in the first half of February. The committee establishes this date in October. The February grant date timing is driven by these considerations:2013-2015 SVA were as follows:
It coincides with the company's calendar-year-based performance management cycle, allowing supervisors to deliver the equity awards close in time to performance appraisals, which increases the impact of the awards by strengthening the link between pay
NameTarget SharesShares Paid Out
Dr. Lechleiter110,756155,058
Mr. Rice46,76365,468
Dr. Lundberg36,91951,687
Mr. Harrington21,53630,150
Mr. Conterno24,61234,457

Other Compensation Practices and performance.Information
It follows the annual earnings release, so that the stock price at that time can reasonably be expected to fairly represent the market's collective view of our then-current results and prospects.
Grants to new hires and other off-cycle grants are effective on the first trading day of the following month.

Employee and Post-Employment Benefits

The company offers core employee benefits coverage to:
provide our global workforce with a reasonable level of financial support in the event of illness or injury,
provide post-retirement income; and retirement
enhance productivity and job satisfaction through benefit programs that focus on work/life balance.overall well-being.

The benefits available are the same for all U.S. employees and include medical and dental coverage, disability insurance, and life insurance.

In addition, The Lilly Employee 401(k) plan (the 401(k) plan)"401(k) Plan") and The Lilly Retirement Plan (the retirement plan)"Retirement Plan") provide U.S. employees a reasonable level of retirement income reflecting employees’ careers with the company. To the extent that any employee’s retirement benefit exceeds IRS limits for amounts that can be paid through a qualified plan, the company also offers a nonqualified pension plan and a nonqualified savings plan. These plans provide only the difference between the calculated benefits and the IRS limits, and the formula is the same for all U.S. employees.

The cost of both employee and post-employment benefits is partially borne by the employee, including each executive officer.

Perquisites

The company provides very limited perquisites to executive officers. The company does not allow personal use of the corporate aircraft except the aircraft is made available for the personal use of Dr. Lechleiter in very rare cases when the security and efficiency benefits to the company outweigh the expense. The company did not incur any expenses for personal use by Dr. Lechleiter did not use the corporateof its aircraft for personal flights during 2012,in 2015, nor did he receive any other perquisites. Depending on seat availability, family members and personal guests of executive officers may travel on the company aircraft to accompany executives who are traveling on business. There is no incremental cost to the company for these trips.

The Lilly Deferred Compensation Plan
Executives
Members of senior management may defer receipt of part or all of their cash compensation under The Lilly Deferred Compensation Plan (the deferred compensation plan)"Deferred Compensation Plan"), which allows executives to save for retirement in a tax-effective way at minimal cost to the company. Under this unfunded plan, amounts deferred by the executive are credited at an interest rate of 120 percent of the applicable federal long-term rate, as described in more detail following the “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 2012���2015” table.

Severance Benefits

Except in the case of a change in control of the company, the company is not obligated to pay severance to named executive officers upon termination of their employment; any such payments are at the discretion of the compensation committee.Compensation Committee.


33P38



The company has adopted change-in-control severance pay plans for nearly all employees, including the executive officers. The plans are intended to preserve employee morale and productivity and encourage retention in the face of the disruptive impact of an actual or rumored change in control. In addition, the plans are intended to align executive and shareholder interests by enabling executives to evaluate corporate transactions that may be in the best interests of the shareholders and other constituents of the company without undue concern over whether the transactions may jeopardize the executives’ own employment.
Change in Control
Severance:
Highlights of our change-in-control severance plans
All regular employees
are covered
Up to two-year pay protection
Double trigger
generally required
Two-year cash pay  protection for executives
• 
18-month benefit continuation
 Tax gross-up eliminated in 2012
The company has adopted a change-in-control severance pay plan for nearly all employees, including the executive officers. The plan is intended to preserve employee morale and productivity and encourage retention in the face of the disruptive impact of an actual or rumored change in control. In addition, the plan is intended to align executive and shareholder interests by enabling executives to consider corporate transactions that are in the best interests of the shareholders and other constituents of the company without undue concern over whether the transactions may jeopardize the executives’ own employment.
Although benefit levels may differ depending on the employee’s job level and seniority, the basic elements of the plan are comparable for all regular employees:
No tax gross-ups

Although benefit levels may differ depending on the employee’s job level and seniority, the basic elements of the plans are comparable for all eligible employees:

Double trigger. Unlike “single trigger” plans that pay out immediately upon a change in control, the company planour plans generally requiresrequire a “double trigger”—a change in control followed by an involuntary loss of employment within two years thereafter. This is consistent with the plan's intent to provide employees with financial protection upon loss of employment. A partial exception is made for outstanding PAs, a portion of which would be paid out upon a change in control on a pro-rated basis for time worked based on the forecasted payout level at the time of the change in control. This partial payment is appropriate because of the difficulties in converting the company EPS targets into an award based on the surviving company’s EPS. Likewise, if Lilly is not the surviving entity, a portion of outstanding SVAs would be paid out on a pro-rated basis for time worked up to the change in control based on the merger price for company stock.

Covered terminations. Employees are eligible for payments if, within two years of the change in control, their employment is terminated (i) without cause by the company or (ii) for good reason by the employee, each as is defined in the plan. See “Potential“Executive Compensation - Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” for a more detailed discussion, including a discussion of what constitutes a change in control.

Employees who suffer a covered termination receive up to two years of pay and 18 months of benefits protection. These provisions assure employees a reasonable period of protection of their income and core employee benefits.
Severance payment. Eligible terminated employees would receive a severance payment ranging from six months’ to two years’ base salary. Executives are all eligible for two years’ base salary plus two times the then-current year’s target bonus.
Benefit continuation. Basic employee benefits such as health and life insurance would be continued for 18 months following termination of employment, unless the individual becomes eligible for coverage with a new employer. All employees would receive an additional two years of both age and years-of-service credit for purposes of determining eligibility for retiree medical and dental benefits.

Accelerated vesting of equity awards. Any unvested equity awards would vest at the time of termination of employment would vest.employment.

Excise tax. In some circumstances, the payments or other benefits received by the employee in connection with a change in control could exceed limits established under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code. The employee would then be subject to an excise tax on top of normal federal income tax. The company does not reimburse employees for any excise or income taxes paid or other severance benefits related to change in control severance.these taxes. However, the amount of change in control-related benefits will be reduced to the 280G limit if the employeeeffect would receivebe to deliver a greater after-tax benefit when compared tothan the payment net of all income and excise taxes thatemployee would be owed as a result of all change in control payments.receive with an unreduced benefit.


P39



Share Ownership and Retention Guidelines; Prohibition on Hedging Prohibition and Pledging Shares

Share ownership and retention guidelines help to foster a focus on long-term growth. The CEO is required to own company stock valued at least six times his or her annual base salary. OtherDuring 2015, the requirement for other executive officers are required to ownchanged from a fixed number of shares basedto a multiple of annual base salary (2 or 3 times annual base salary depending on their position. The fixedthe position). Until the required number of shares eliminates volatility in the share ownership requirements that can occur with sharp movements in share price. Until the guideline level is reached, the executive officer must retain all existing holdings as well as 50 percent of net shares resultingreceived from new equity payouts. Our executives have a long history of maintaining extensive holdings insignificant levels of company stock, and all named executive officers already meet or exceed the guideline. All new executive officers are on track to meet or exceed

34



the guideline within the next few years.stock. As of February 22, 2013,19, 2016, Dr. Lechleiter held shares valued at approximately 2649 times his annual salary. The following table shows the required share levelsrequirements for the named executive officers:each NEO:
Executive officers are also required to retain all shares received from the company equity programs, net of acquisition costs and taxes, for at least one year, even once share ownership requirements have been met. For PAs, this requirement is met by paying the award in the form of RSUs with a one-year vesting period. Employees are not permitted to hedge their economic exposures to company stock through short sales or derivative transactions, and our executive officers do not hold any pledged shares.
NameShare RequirementMeets RequirementOwns Required Shares
Dr. Lechleitersix times base salaryYes
Mr. Rice75,000
three times base salary

Yes
Dr. Lundberg75,000
three times base salary

Yes
Mr. ArmitageHarringtonRetired
three times base salary

--
Yes

Mr. Conterno50,000
three times base salary

Yes
Tax Deductibility Cap on Executive Compensation
U.S. federal income tax law prohibits the company from taking a tax deduction for non-performance based compensation paid in excess of $1,000,000 to named executive officers. However, performance-based compensation is fully deductible if the programs are approved by shareholders and meet other requirements. Our policy is to qualify our incentive compensation programs for full corporate deductibility to the extent feasible and consistent with our overall compensation objectives.

WeExecutive officers are also required to hold all shares received from equity program payouts, net of acquisition costs and taxes, for at least one year, even once share ownership requirements have taken steps to qualify all incentive awards (bonuses,been met. For PAs, and SVAs) for full deductibility as performance-based compensation. The committee may make paymentsthis holding requirement is met by the one-year service-vesting period that applies after the end of the performance period.

Employees are not fully deductible if, in its judgment, such paymentspermitted to hedge their economic exposures to company stock through short sales or derivative transactions. Non-employee directors and all members of senior management are necessary to achieve the company's compensation objectives and to protect shareholder interests. For 2012, the non-deductible compensation was approximately $440,000prohibited from pledging any company stock (i.e., using company stock as collateral for Dr. Lechleiter, less than the portion of his base salary that exceeded $1,000,000, and approximately $1.36 million for Dr. Lundberg, primarily attributable to the vesting of RSUs received when he joined the company.a loan or trading shares on margin).

Executive Compensation Recovery Policy and Other Risk Mitigation Tools

All incentive awards are subject to forfeiture upon termination of employment prior to the end of the performance period or for disciplinary reasons. In addition, the Compensation Committee has adopted an executive compensation recovery policy, is administered bywhich gives the compensation committee which has broad discretion to determine appropriate implementation. Pursuantclaw back incentive payouts from any member of senior management (approximately 160 employees) whose misconduct results in a material violation of law or company policy that causes significant harm to the executive compensation recovery policycompany, or who fails in place for 2012,his or her supervisory responsibility to prevent such misconduct by others.

Additionally, the company is empowered tocan recover incentive compensation (cash or equity) that was based on achievement of financial results that were subsequently the subject of a restatement if the executive officer engaged in intentional misconduct that caused or partially caused the need for the restatement and the effect of the wrongdoing was to increase the amount of bonus or incentive compensation. The committee does not believe it is practical to apply a specific claw-back policy to SVAs in the event of misstated financial results since it is very difficult to isolate the amount, if any, by which the stock price might benefit from misstated financial results over a three-year performance period. As set forth in the "Looking Ahead to 2013 Compensation" section below, the recovery policy for misconduct will be broadened in future years.

The company can also recover or “claw back” all or a portion of any incentive compensation in the case of materially inaccurate financial statements or material errors in the performance calculation, whether or not they result in a restatement and whether or not the executive officer has engaged in wrongful conduct. Recoveries under this “no-fault” provision cannot extend back more than two years.

The recovery policy applies tocovers any incentive compensation awarded or paid to an employee at a time when he or she is an executive officer.a member of senior management. Subsequent changes in status, including retirement or termination of employment, do not affect the company’s rights to recover compensation under the policy. Recoveries under the plan can extend back as far as three years.

In addition to the executive compensation recovery policy, the committee and management have implemented compensation-program design features to mitigate the risk of compensation programs encouraging misconduct or imprudent risk-taking. First, incentive programs are designed using a diversity of meaningful financial metrics (growth in stock price measured over three years, revenue, EPS [measured over one and two years], and pipeline progress), providing a balance between short- and long-term performance. The committee reviews incentive programs each year against the objectives of the programs, assesses any features that could encourage excessive risk-taking, and makes changes as necessary. Second, management has implemented effective controls that minimize unintended and willful reporting errors.

35P40




Looking Ahead to 20132016 Compensation
Changes
We periodically review our incentive programs to ensure alignment with our business strategy and the views of our stakeholders.  As a result of a review conducted in 2015, it was concluded that the current programs have worked well, i.e., paid for performance, provided appropriate incentives for our executives, and met the interests of our external stakeholders as evidenced by strong say-on-pay vote outcomes and the positive feedback received during shareholder outreach calls. However, this review identified some enhancements to the company’sShareholder Value Award (SVA) for executive compensation program effectiveofficers to be implemented in 2013:2016, as follows:
Following dialogueChanged the payout threshold and maximum to 50% and 150% (from 40% and 140%) to align with shareholders, we have broadenedthe PA’s threshold and maximum payout levels.
Added a "relative TSR modifier" to reflect our executive compensation recovery policyperformance compared with the median performance of our peer group. This will incent our executives to deliver top performance within the industry in two ways:addition to driving absolute shareholder return. The number of shares to be paid will increase or decrease by 1% for every percentage point Lilly’s three-year TSR deviates from our peer group’s median three-year TSR (capped at +/-20%).
We removed the requirement that there be a financial restatement in order to recover compensation from an executive who has engaged in misconduct. The policy now allows recovery from an executive whose misconduct results in a material violation of law or company policy that causes significant harm to the company, or who fails in his or her supervisory responsibility to prevent such misconduct by others; and
We expanded the policy to apply to all members of senior management.
Increased the portion of equity being awarded as SVAs (from 50% to 60%) to incent behaviors aligned with long-term growth.

For our 2013 compensation decisions, we expandedWe also approved minor changes to our peer group, adding Shire Plc and removing Abbott and also Allergan, which was acquired by Actavis in 2015.

Executive Compensation


Summary Compensation Table

Name and Principal PositionYear
Salary
($)
Bonus
($)
Stock Awards
($) 1
Option Awards
($)
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation
($) 2
Change in
Pension Value
($) 3, 5
All Other Compensation
($) 4
Total Compensation
($)
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.2015
$1,500,000
$0$11,350,000$0
$3,622,500
$0
$90,000

$16,562,500
Chairman, President, and
Chief Executive Officer
2014
$1,500,000
$0$6,750,000$0
$1,785,000
$4,356,142
$90,000

$14,481,142
2013
$1,500,000
$0$6,750,000$0
$2,877,000
$0
$90,000

$11,217,000
Derica W. Rice2015
$1,045,200
$0$4,313,000$0
$1,514,495
$0
$62,712

$6,935,407
Executive Vice President,
Global Services and
Chief Financial Officer
2014
$1,019,700
$0$2,850,000$0
$780,071
$2,023,458
$61,182

$6,734,411
2013
$1,014,750
$0$2,850,000$0
$1,251,187
$0
$60,885

$5,176,822
Jan M. Lundberg, Ph.D.2015
$1,007,855
$0$3,859,000$0
$1,460,382
$390,645
$60,471

$6,778,353
Executive Vice President,
Science and Technology and President, Lilly Research Laboratories
2014
$1,007,855
$0$2,250,000$0
$771,009
$517,761
$60,471

$4,607,096
2013
$1,002,963
$0$2,250,000$0
$1,236,653
$224,741
$60,178

$4,774,535
Michael J. Harrington2015
$784,167
$0$2,610,500$0
$946,881
$391,899
$47,050

$4,780,497
Senior Vice President and
General Counsel
2014
$765,000
$0$1,425,000$0
$487,688
$1,330,586
$45,900

$4,054,174
2013
$765,000
$0$1,312,500$0
$786,038
$264,784
$45,900

$3,174,222
Enrique A. Conterno2015
$705,653
$0$2,270,000$0
$852,075
$0
$42,339

$3,870,067
Senior Vice President and
President Diabetes Business Unit
2014
$682,890
$0$1,500,000$0
$435,342
$1,235,839
$40,973

$3,895,044
2013
$680,658
$0$1,500,000$0
$699,376
$88,167
$40,840

$3,009,041

1 This column shows the grant date fair value of PAs and SVAs computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. Values for awards subject to include six smaller biopharmaceutical and medical device companies: Allergan, Inc., Biogen IDEC Inc., Celgene Corporation, Covidien PLC, Gilead Sciences, Inc., and Medtronic, Inc. Lilly's size in termsperformance conditions (PAs) are computed based upon the probable outcome of revenue isthe performance condition as of the grant date. The PA grant values includes in the middle"Stock Awards" column are based on the probable payout outcome anticipated at the time of our new peer group.

Compensation Committee Report
The compensation committee evaluates and establishes compensation for executive officers and oversees the deferred compensation plan, the company’s management stock plans, and other management incentive, benefit, and perquisite programs. Management has the primary responsibility for the company’s financial statements and reporting process, including the disclosure of executive compensation. With this in mind, the compensation committee has reviewed and discussed with management the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” above. The committee is satisfied that the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” fairly and completely represents the philosophy, intent, and actions of the committee with regard to executive compensation. The committee recommended to the board of directors that the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” be included in this proxy statement for filing with the SEC.

Compensation Committee
Karen N. Horn, Ph.D., Chair
R. David Hoover
Ellen R. Marram
Kathi P. Seifert

grant, which was

36P41



Executive Compensationdifferent from the target value in each year. For purposes of comparison, the supplemental table below shows the total target grant values:

Summary Compensation Table
Name and
Principal Position
 YearSalary
($)
Bonus
($)
 
Stock
Awards
($)
 3
 Option
Awards
($)
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)
 4
Change
in Pension
Value
($)
 5
All Other
Compensation
($)
6
Total
Compensation
($)
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.
1 
2012$1,500,000$0
$5,625,000
$0$2,982,000$4,423,633$90,000$14,620,633
Chairman, President, and
Chief Executive Officer

2011$1,500,000$0
$5,625,000
$0$2,625,000$6,530,094$90,000$16,370,094

2010$1,500,000$0
$8,175,000
$0$2,982,000$3,757,545$90,000$16,504,545
Derica W. Rice
2012$990,000$0
$2,850,000
$0$1,265,220$1,770,767$59,400$6,935,387
Executive Vice President,
Global Services and
Chief Financial Officer

2011$984,167$0
$2,850,000
$0$1,107,188$940,589$59,050$5,940,993

2010$955,000$0
$3,270,000
$0$1,220,490$996,723$57,300$6,499,513
Jan M. Lundberg, Ph.D.
2012$978,500$0
$2,250,000
$0$1,250,523$307,275$58,710$4,845,008
Executive Vice President,
Science and Technology and President, Lilly Research Laboratories

2011$973,750$0
$2,062,500
$0$1,095,469$232,128$58,425$4,422,272

2010$946,401$1,000,000
2 
$6,225,000
2 
$0$1,209,501$83,150$87,833$9,551,885












Robert A. Armitage
2012$840,900$0
$1,500,000
$0$955,262$629,012$50,454$3,975,628
Senior Vice President and
General Counsel

2011$840,900$0
$1,500,000
$0$840,900$595,293$50,454$3,827,547

2010$836,817$0
$2,180,000
$0$950,624$521,237$50,209$4,538,886
Enrique A. Conterno
2012$669,500$0
$1,500,000
$0$713,018$992,187$40,170$3,914,875
Senior Vice President and
President, Lilly Diabetes

2011$666,250$0
$1,500,000
$0$624,609$887,380$39,975$3,718,214

2010$650,000$0
$1,962,000
$0$692,250$275,998$39,000$3,619,248
Name2013 Total Equity2014 Total Equity2015 Total Equity
Dr. Lechleiter$9,000,000$9,000,000$10,000,000
Mr. Rice$3,800,000$3,800,000$3,800,000
Dr. Lundberg$3,000,000$3,000,000$3,400,000
Mr. Harrington$1,750,000$1,900,000$2,300,000
Mr. Conterno$2,000,000$2,000,000$2,000,000

1
Supplement to the "Summary Compensation Table." The PA grant values included in the "Stock Awards" column are based on the probable payout outcome anticipated at the time of grant, which was different from the target value in each year. For purposes of comparison, the supplemental table below shows Dr. Lechleiter's target compensation, which has remained the same for the past three years as the company entered the current period of patent expirations.
NameYearAnnualized SalaryTarget Stock AwardsTarget Cash Incentive BonusTotal
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.2012$1,500,000$7,500,000$2,100,000$11,100,000

2011$1,500,000$7,500,000$2,100,000$11,100,000

2010$1,500,000$7,500,000$2,100,000$11,100,000
2
Dr. Lundberg received a signing bonus and a one-time RSU award upon joining the company in January 2010.
3
This column shows the grant date fair value of PAs and SVAs computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. Values for awards subject to performance conditions (PAs) are computed based upon the probable outcome of the performance condition as of the grant date. A discussion of assumptions used in calculating award values may be found in Note 9 to our 2012 audited financial statements in our Form 10-K.

The table below shows the minimum, target, and maximum payouts (using the grant date fair value) for the 2012-20132015-2016 PA grant included in this column of the Summary Compensation Table.  
NamePayout DateMinimum PayoutTarget PayoutMaximum PayoutPayout DateMinimum PayoutTarget PayoutMaximum Payout
Dr. LechleiterJanuary 2014$0$3,750,000$5,625,000January 2017$0$5,000,000$7,500,000
Mr. RiceJanuary 2014$0$1,900,000$2,850,000January 2017$0$1,900,000$2,850,000
Dr. LundbergJanuary 2014$0$1,500,000$2,250,000January 2017$0$1,700,000$2,550,000
Mr. ArmitageJanuary 2014$0$1,000,000$1,500,000
Mr. HarringtonJanuary 2017$0$1,150,000$1,725,000
Mr. ConternoJanuary 2014$0$1,000,000$1,500,000January 2017$0$1,000,000$1,500,000

4
Payments for 2012 performance were made in March 2013 under the bonus plan. All bonuses paid to named executive officers were part of a non-equity incentive plan.
5
The amounts in this column are
2     Payments for 2015 performance under the bonus plan. All bonuses paid to NEOs were part of a non-equity incentive plan.

3     The amounts in this column reflect the change in pension value for each individual, calculated by our actuary. No named executive officer received preferential or above-market earnings on deferred compensation.
6
The table below shows the components of the “All Other Compensation” column for 2010 through 2012, which

37



includes the company match for each individual’sindividual, calculated by our actuary, and are affected by additional service accruals and pay earned, as well as actuarial assumption changes. The changes in pension values in 2015 were driven to a large extent by a higher discount rate which lowered the net present value of pensions. The design of the pension benefit did not change. See the Pension Benefits in 2015 table on page 46 for information about the standard actuarial assumptions used. No named executive officer received preferential or above-market earnings on deferred compensation.
4     The amounts in this column are solely company matching contributions for each individual's 401(k) plan contributions, tax reimbursements, andperquisites.  contributions. The company does not reimburse executives for taxes outside of the limited circumstance of taxes related to employee relocation or a prior international assignment. There were no reportable perquisites or personal benefits.
NameYearSavings Plan
Match
Tax
Reimbursements
PerquisitesOtherTotal "All Other
Compensation"
Dr. Lechleiter2012$90,000$0
$0$0
$90,000

2011$90,000$0
$0$0
$90,000

2010$90,000$0
$0$0
$90,000
Mr. Rice2012$59,400$0
$0$0
$59,400

2011$59,050$0
$0$0
$59,050

2010$57,300$0
$0$0
$57,300
Dr. Lundberg2012$58,710$0
$0$0
$58,710

2011$58,425$0
$0$0
$58,425

2010$56,784$12,876
1 
$0$18,173
2 
$87,833
Mr. Armitage2012$50,454$0
$0$0
$50,454

2011$50,454$0
$0$0
$50,454

2010$50,209$0
$0$0
$50,209
Mr. Conterno2012$40,170$0
$0$0
$40,170

2011$39,975$0
$0$0
$39,975

2010$39,000$0
$0$0
$39,000
1
The company does not reimburse executive officers for taxes outside of the limited circumstance of taxes related to employee relocation. The 2010 amount for Dr. Lundberg is related to such relocation-related tax reimbursements, which were made pursuant to our relocation policy that applies to any employee asked by the company to relocate.
2
Relocation expenses reimbursed under the company relocation policy.
We have5     In some years, the net present value of the pension benefits for Dr. Lechleiter, Mr. Rice, and Mr. Conterno reflect no employment agreements with ourchange from the previous year due to an increase in the discount rate over the prior year. For the other named executive officers.officers, increases in pensionable earnings offset the impact of the increased discount rate.


38



Grants of Plan-Based Awards During 20122015
The compensation plans under which the grants in the following table were made are described in the “Compensation DiscussionCD&A and Analysis” and includeconsist of the bonus plan (a non-equity incentive plan) and the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan (which provides for PAs, SVAs, stock options, restricted stock grants, and RSUs).

P42



   
Estimated Possible Payouts Under
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan Awards
 1
Estimated Future
Payouts Under Equity
Incentive Plan Awards
All Other
Stock or
Option
Awards:
Number
of
Shares
of Stock,
Options,
or Units
Grant
Date Fair
Value of
Equity
Awards
NameAward
Grant Date2
Compensation Committee Action Date
Estimated Future Payouts
Under Non-Equity
Incentive Plan Awards
1
Estimated Future
Payouts Under Equity
Incentive Plan Awards
All Other
Stock or Option Awards:
Number of
Shares of Stock,
Options, or Units
Grant Date
Fair Value
of Equity
Awards
AwardGrant
Date
Compensation
Committee
Action Date
Threshold
($)
Target
($)
Maximum
($)
Threshold
(# shares)
Target
(# shares)
Maximum (# shares)All Other
Stock or
Option
Awards:
Number
of
Shares
of Stock,
Options,
or Units
Grant
Date Fair
Value of
Equity
Awards
Threshold
($)
Target
($)
Maximum
($)
Threshold
(# shares)
Target
(# shares)
Maximum
(# shares)
Dr. Lechleiter

$52,500td,100,000$4,200,000
 
__ 
 
__ 
$56,250td,250,000$4,500,000     

2012-2013 PA2/6/2012
2 
12/12/2011

52,462104,924157,386
$1,875,0002015-2016 PA3/30/2015
3 
3/28/2015  35,54271,083106,625 $6,350,000

2012-2014 SVA2/6/2012
3 
12/12/2011

56,775141,938198,713
$3,750,0002015-2017 SVA2/2/2015
4 
1/26/2015  45,015112,537157,552 $5,000,000








       0 
Mr. Rice

$22,275$891,000$1,782,000
 
__ 
 
__ 
$23,517$940,680$1,881,360   

2012-2013 PA2/6/2012
2 
12/12/2011

26,58153,16279,743
$950,0002015-2016 PA3/30/2015
3 
3/28/2015  13,50627,01240,518 $2,413,000

2012-2014 SVA2/6/2012
3 
12/12/2011

28,76671,915100,681
$1,900,0002015-2017 SVA2/2/2015
4 
1/26/2015  17,10642,76459,870 $1,900,000








       0 
Dr. Lundberg

$22,016$880,650$1,761,300
 
__ 
 
__ 
$22,677$907,070$1,814,139     

2012-2013 PA2/6/2012
2 
12/12/2011

20,98541,97062,955
$750,0002015-2016 PA3/30/2015
3 
3/28/2015  12,08424,16836,252 $2,159,000

2012-2014 SVA2/6/2012
3 
12/12/2011

22,71056,77579,485
$1,500,0002015-2017 SVA2/2/2015
4 
1/26/2015  15,30538,26253,567 $1,700,000








       0 
Mr. Armitage

$16,818$672,720$1,345,440
Mr. Harrington 
__ 
 
__ 
$14,703$588,125$1,176,250     

2012-2013 PA2/6/2012
2 
12/12/2011

13,99027,98041,970
$500,0002015-2016 PA3/30/2015
3 
3/28/2015  8,17516,34924,524 $1,460,500

2012-2014 SVA2/6/2012
3 
12/12/2011

15,14037,85052,990
$1,000,0002015-2017 SVA2/2/2015
4 
1/26/2015  10,35325,88336,236 $1,150,000









   
  
      0 
Mr. Conterno

$12,553$502,125$1,004,250
 
__ 
 
__ 
$13,231$529,239$1,058,479     

2012-2013 PA2/6/2012
2 
12/12/2011

13,99027,98041,970
$500,0002015-2016 PA3/30/2015
3 
3/28/2015  7,10914,21721,326 $1,270,000

2012-2014 SVA2/6/2012
3 
12/12/2011

15,14037,85052,990
$1,000,0002015-2017 SVA2/2/2015
4 
1/26/2015  9,00322,50731,510 $1,000,000








       0 
1
1    These columns show the threshold, target, and maximum payouts for performance under the bonus plan. Bonus payouts range from 0 to 200 percent of target. The bonus payment for 2015 performance was 161 percent of target, and is included in the “Summary Compensation Table” in the column titled “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation.”

2    To assure grant timing is not manipulated for employee gain, the annual grant date is established in advance by the Compensation Committee. Equity awards to new hires and other off-cycle grants are effective on the first trading day of the following month.

3 This row shows the range of payouts for 2015-2016 PA grants. This PA will pay out in January 2017, with payouts ranging from 0 to 150 percent of target. The grant-date fair value of the PA reflects the probable payout outcome anticipated at the time of grant, which was greater than the target value.

4    This row shows the range of payouts for 2015-2017 SVA grants. This SVA will pay out in January 2018, with payouts ranging from 0 to 140 percent of target. We measure the fair value of the SVA on the grant date using a Monte Carlo simulation model.
These columns show the threshold, target, and maximum payouts for performance under the bonus plan. As described in the section titled “Cash Incentive Bonuses” in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” bonus-payouts range from 0 to 200 percent of target. The bonus payment for 2012 performance was 142 percent of target, and is included in the “Summary Compensation Table” in the column titled “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation.”
2
This row shows the range of payouts for 2012-2013 PA grants as described in the section titled “Equity Incentives—Performance Awards” in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.” The 2012-2013 PA will pay out in January 2014 based on cumulative adjusted non-GAAP EPS for 2012 and 2013. Payouts will range from 0 to 150 percent of target and will be in the form of RSUs, vesting in February 2015. The grant-date fair value of the PA reflects the probable payout outcome anticipated at the time of grant, which was less than the target value.
3
This row shows the range of payouts for 2012-2014 SVA grants as described in the section titled “Equity Incentives—Shareholder Value Awards” in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.” The 2012-2014 SVA payout will be determined in January 2015. SVA payouts range from 0 to 140 percent of target. We measure the fair value of the SVA unit on the grant date using a Monte Carlo simulation model.
To receive a payout under the PA or the SVA, a participant must remain employed with the company through the end of the relevant performance period (except in the case of death, disability, retirement, or retirement). In addition, an employee who was an executive officer at the time of the 2012-2013 PA grant will receive payment in RSUs according to the chart titled “Performance and Holding Periods for PAs and SVAs” in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.” SVAs granted in 2012 will pay out in common stock at the end of the three-year performance period according to the grid in the section of the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” titled “Equity Incentives—Shareholder Value Awards,” provided the participant is still employed with the company (except in the case of death, disability, or retirement)reallocation). No dividends accrue on either PAs or SVAs during the performance period. Non-preferential dividends accrue during the earned PA’s one-year restriction period (following the two-year performance period) and are paid upon vesting.

39P43




Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2015
The 2015 closing stock price applied to the values in the table below was $84.26.
Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2012

Option AwardsStock Awards
Stock Awards1
NameNumber of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)
Exercisable
1
 
Option Exercise Price
($)
Option
Expiration
Date
AwardNumber of
Shares or
Units of Stock
That Have Not
Vested (#)
Market
Value of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested ($)
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units, or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#)Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Market or
Payout Value of Unearned
Shares, Units,
or Other Rights
That Have Not
Vested ($)
AwardNumber of
Shares or
Units of Stock
That Have Not
Vested (#)
Market
Value of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested ($)
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units, or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#)Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Market or
Payout Value of Unearned
Shares, Units,
or Other Rights
That Have Not
Vested ($)
Dr. Lechleiter



2012-2014 SVA



198,713
2 
$9,800,5252015-2017 SVA



157,552
2 
$13,275,332





2011-2013 SVA



209,331
3 
$10,324,205





2012-2013 PA



52,462
4 
$2,587,426





2011-2012 PA58,778
5 
$2,898,931








2010-2011 PA132,367
6 
$6,528,340




140,964


$56.1802/09/2016








2014-2016 SVA



172,178
3 
$14,507,718

127,811


$55.6502/10/2015








2015-2016 PA



35,542
4 
$2,994,769

200,000


$73.1102/14/2014








2014-2015 PA46,097
5 
$3,884,133




120,000
7 

$57.8502/15/2013








2013-2014 PA46,623
6 
$3,928,454



Mr. Rice



2012-2014 SVA



100,681
2 
$4,965,5872015-2017 SVA


59,870
2 
$5,044,646





2011-2013 SVA



106,061
3 
$5,230,9292014-2016 SVA


72,698
3 
$6,125,533





2012-2013 PA



26,581
4 
$1,310,9752015-2016 PA


13,506
4 
$1,138,016





2011-2012 PA29,781
5 
$1,468,799



2014-2015 PA19,463
5 
$1,639,952








2010-2011 PA52,947
6 
$2,611,346



2013-2014 PA19,685
6 
$1,658,658




30,000


$52.5404/29/2016









27,108


$56.1802/09/2016









23,077


$55.6502/10/2015









25,000


$73.1102/14/2014









11,200
7 

$57.8502/15/2013








Dr. Lundberg




2012-2014 SVA



79,485
2 
$3,920,2002015-2017 SVA



53,567
2 
$4,513,555






2011-2013 SVA



76,755
3 
$3,785,5572014-2016 SVA



57,393
3 
$4,835,934






2012-2013 PA



20,985
4 
$1,034,9802015-2016 PA



12,084
4 
$1,018,198






2011-2012 PA21,552
5 
$1,062,945



2014-2015 PA15,366
5 
$1,294,739









2010-2011 PA44,122
6 
$2,176,097



2013-2014 PA15,541
6 
$1,309,485









Grant upon hire33,334
8 
$1,644,033



Mr. Armitage




2012-2014 SVA



52,990
2 
$2,613,467






2011-2013 SVA



55,821
3 
$2,753,092






2012-2013 PA



13,990
4 
$689,987






2011-2012 PA15,674
5 
$773,042









2010-2011 PA35,297
6 
$1,740,848



Mr. Harrington2015-2017 SVA


36,236
2 
$3,053,245

54,217


$56.1802/09/2016








2014-2016 SVA


36,348
3 
$3,062,682

53,254


$55.6502/10/2015








2015-2016 PA


8,175
4 
$688,826

80,000


$73.1102/14/2014








2014-2015 PA9,732
5 
$820,018




80,000
7 

$57.8502/15/2013








2013-2014 PA9,066
6 
$763,901  
Mr. Conterno




2012-2014 SVA



52,990
2 
$2,613,4672015-2017 SVA



31,510
2 
$2,655,033






2011-2013 SVA



55,821
3 
$2,753,0922014-2016 SVA



38,262
3 
$3,223,956






2012-2013 PA



13,990
4 
$689,9872015-2016 PA


7,109
4 
$599,004






2011-2012 PA15,674
5 
$773,042



2014-2015 PA10,244
5 
$863,159









2010-2011 PA31,768
6 
$1,566,798



2013-2014 PA10,360
6 
$872,934









RSU30,000
9 
$1,479,600



RSU20,000
7 
$1,685,200




6,928


$56.1802/09/2016









7,101


$55.6502/10/2015









10,700


$73.1102/14/2014









10,700
7 
 $57.8502/15/2013








1

1 The chart no longer includes stock option awards as the company has not awarded stock options to employees since 2006 and there are no outstanding stock option awards.

2    SVAs granted for the 2015-2017 performance period. The number of shares reported reflects the maximum payout, which will be made if the average closing stock price in November and December 2017 is over $92.04. Actual payouts may vary from 0 to 140 percent of target. Net shares from any payout must be held by executive officers for a minimum of one year. Had the performance period ended December 31, 2015, the payout would have been 100 percent of target.

3 SVAs granted for the 2014-2016 performance period. The number of shares reported reflects the maximum payout, which will be made if the average closing stock price in November and December 2016 is over $65.44. Actual payouts may vary from 0 to 140 percent of target. Net shares from any payout must be held by executive officers for a minimum of one year. Had the performance period ended December 31, 2015, the payout would have been 140 percent of target.

4    This number represents the threshold value of PA shares that could pay out for 2015-2016 performance, provided performance goals are met. Once the combined cumulative EPS result and associated payout level is determined, RSUs vesting in February 2018 will be issued. Actual payouts may vary from 0 to 150 percent
These options vested as listed in the table below by expiration date.

40P44



of target. The number of shares recorded in the table reflects the payout if the combined cumulative EPS for 2015 and 2016 is $6.15.
Expiration DateVesting Date
Expiration DateVesting Date
4/29/20165/1/2009
2/14/20142/19/2007
2/9/20162/10/2009
2/15/20132/17/2006
2/10/20152/11/2008


2
5    The 2014-2015 PA was determined to be 50 percent of target in January 2016 and the resulting RSUs will vest February 2017.

6    RSUs vested February 2016 from the 2013-2014 PA.

SVAs granted for the 2012-2014 performance period that will end December 31, 2014. The number of shares reported in the table reflects the maximum payout, which will be made if the average closing stock price in November and December 2014 is over $49.64. Actual payouts may vary from 0 to 140 percent of target. Net shares from any payout must be held by executive officers for a minimum of one year. Had the performance period ended at year-end 2012, the payout would have been 120 percent of target.
3
SVAs granted for the 2011-2013 performance period that will end December 31, 2013. The number of shares reported in the table reflects the maximum payout, which will be made if the average closing stock price in November and December 2013 is over $44.59. Actual payouts may vary from 0 to 140 percent of target. Net shares from any payout must be held by executive officers for a minimum of one year. Had the performance period ended at year-end 2012, the payout would have been 140 percent of target.
4
This number represents the threshold value of PA shares that could pay out in January 2014 for 2012-2013 performance, provided performance goals are met. Any shares resulting from this award will pay out in the form of RSUs, vesting February 2015. Actual payouts may vary from 0 to 150 percent of target. The number of shares recorded in the table reflects the payout if the combined cumulative adjusted non-GAAP EPS for 2012 and 2013 falls between the range of $4.41 and $8.46.
5
The 2011-2012 PA paid out at 50 percent of target in January 2013 in the form of RSUs, vesting February 2014.
6
PA shares paid out in January 2012 for the 2010-2011 performance period. These shares vested in February 2013.
7These options expired with no value realized byThis grant was made in 2008 outside of the holder.normal annual cycle and will vest on May 1, 2018.
8 Dr. Lundberg’s RSU award was granted February 1, 2010; one third vested on February 1, 2011, one third vested February 1, 2012,
Options Exercised and the remaining shares vested February 1, 2013.Stock Vested in 2015
9
This grant was made in 2008 outside of the normal annual cycle and will vest in two installments, one third on May 1, 2013, and the remaining shares on May 1, 2018.
Options Exercised and Stock Vested in 2012
Option Awards Stock AwardsOption Awards Stock Awards
NameNumber of Shares
Acquired on Exercise (#)
Value Realized
on Exercise ($)
 Number of  Shares
Acquired on Vesting (#)
Value Realized
on Vesting ($)
 1
Number of Shares
Acquired on Exercise  (#)
Value Realized
on Exercise ($)
 Number of  Shares
Acquired on Vesting (#)
Value Realized
on Vesting ($)
1
Dr. Lechleiter 0$0
219,812
2 
$8,735,329140,964td,864,829
52,462
2 
$3,777,264

238,203
3 
td2,674,782
155,058
3 
td2,708,586
Mr. Rice0$0
87,924
2 
$3,494,10057,108td,024,145
26,581
2 
td,913,832

95,281
3 
$5,069,902
65,468
3 
$5,365,774
Dr. Lundberg0$0
33,333
4 
td,324,6530$0
20,985
2 
td,510,920

79,401
3 
$4,224,927
51,687
3 
$4,236,234
Mr. Armitage0$0
58,616
2 
td,329,400

63,521
3 
$3,379,952
Mr. Harrington6,024$88,613
0

$0

30,150
3 
td,471,127
Mr. Conterno0$0


6,928td69,875
13,990
2 
td,007,280

57,169
3 
$3,041,962
34,457
3 
td,824,079

1
1    Amounts reflect the market value of the stock on the day the stock vested.

2    RSUs resulting from the 2012-2013 PA vested in February 2015.

3    Payout of the 2013-2015 SVA at 140 percent of target.
Amounts reflect the market value of the stock on the day the stock vested.
2
PAs paid out in January 2011 (as RSUs) for company performance during 2009-2010 and subject to forfeiture until vesting in February 2012.
3
Payout of the 2010-2012 SVA at 140 percent of target.
4
The second installment of a one-time RSU grant awarded to Dr. Lundberg when he joined the company in 2010.

Retirement Benefits
We provide retirement income to eligible U.S. employees, including executive officers, through the following plans:
The 401(k) plan,Plan, a defined contribution plan qualified under Sections 401(a) and 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Participants may elect to contribute a portion of their base salary to the plan, and the company provides matching contributions on employees’ contributions up to 6 percent of base salary.salary up to IRS limits. The employee contributions, company contributions, and earnings thereon are paid out in accordance with elections made by the participant. See the footnotes to"All Other Compensation" column in the “Summary Compensation Table” for information about company contributions under the 401(k) Plan for the named executive officers.
The retirement plan,Retirement Plan, a tax-qualified defined benefit plan that provides monthly benefits to retirees. See the “Pension Benefits in 2012”2015” table below for additional information about the value of these pension benefits.

41




Sections 401 and 415 of the Internal Revenue Code generally limit the amount of annual pension that can be paid from a tax-qualified plan ($200,000265,000 in 2012)2015 and 2016) as well as the amount of annual earnings that can be used to calculate a pension benefit ($250,000 in 2012).benefit. However, since 1975 the company has maintained a nonqualified pension plan that pays retirees the difference between the amount payable under the retirement planRetirement Plan and the amount they would have received without the Internal Revenue Code limits. The nonqualified pension plan is unfunded and subject to forfeiture in the event of bankruptcy.

P45



 
The following table shows benefits that the named executive officers have accrued under the retirement planRetirement Plan and the nonqualified pension plan.

Pension Benefits in 2015
Pension Benefits in 2012
Name PlanNumber of Years of
Credited Service
Present Value of
Accumulated Benefit ($)
1
Payments During
Last Fiscal Year ($)
 PlanNumber of Years of
Credited Service
Present Value of
Accumulated Benefit ($)
1
Payments During
Last Fiscal Year ($)
Dr. Lechleiter
2 
retirement plan (pre-2010)30$1,488,325
2 
retirement plan (pre-2010)30$1,496,356


retirement plan (post-2009)3$83,994
 retirement plan (post-2009)6$203,236


nonqualified plan (pre-2010)30$27,003,459
 nonqualified plan (pre-2010)30$27,379,687


nonqualified plan (post-2009)3$1,391,941
 nonqualified plan (post-2009)6$3,396,749


total
$29,967,719
$0 total
$32,476,028
$0
Mr. Rice
retirement plan (pre-2010)20$656,354
 retirement plan (pre-2010)20$762,942


retirement plan (post-2009)3$52,471
 retirement plan (post-2009)6$121,986


nonqualified plan (pre-2010)20$5,245,909
 nonqualified plan (pre-2010)20$6,246,898


nonqualified plan (post-2009)3$391,742
 nonqualified plan (post-2009)6$933,180


total
$6,346,476
$0 total
$8,065,006
$0
Dr. Lundberg
3 
retirement plan (post-2009)3$88,987
 retirement plan (post-2009)6$212,890


nonqualified plan (post-2009)3$536,765
 nonqualified plan (post-2009)6$1,546,009


total
$625,752
$0 total
$1,758,899
$0
Mr. Armitage
4 
retirement plan (pre-2010)10$426,608
Mr. Harrington retirement plan (pre-2010)18$727,073



retirement plan (post-2009)3$106,939
 retirement plan (post-2009)6$133,848



nonqualified plan (pre-2010)10$3,107,546
 nonqualified plan (pre-2010)18$2,419,836



nonqualified plan (post-2009)3$698,602
 nonqualified plan (post-2009)6$426,410



total
$4,339,695
$0 total
$3,707,167
$0
Mr. Conterno
retirement plan (pre-2010)17$559,272

 retirement plan (pre-2010)17$648,486


retirement plan (post-2009)3$50,274

 retirement plan (post-2009)6$116,454


nonqualified plan (pre-2010)17$2,087,151

 nonqualified plan (pre-2010)17$2,906,865


nonqualified plan (post-2009)3$177,429

 nonqualified plan (post-2009)6$494,664



total
$2,874,126
$0 total
$4,166,469
$0

1
1    The following standard actuarial assumptions were used to calculate the present value of each individual’s accumulated pension benefit:
The following standard actuarial assumptions were used to calculate the present value of each individual’s accumulated pension benefit:
Discount rate:4.374.75 percent
Mortality (post-retirement decrement only):RP 2000CHRP2006 with generational projection using Scale MP2015
Pre-2010 joint and survivor benefit (% of pension):50% until age 62; 25% thereafter
Post-2009 benefit payment form:life annuity

2
2    Dr. Lechleiter is currently eligible for full retirement benefits under the old plan formula (pre-2010 benefits) and qualifies for early retirement under the new plan formula (post-2009 benefits) as described below.
Dr. Lechleiter is currently eligible for full retirement benefits under the old plan formula (pre-2010 benefits) and qualifies for early retirement under the new plan formula (post-2009 benefits, as described below).
3
Dr. Lundberg joined the company in January 2010. He is covered under our retirement plans and has no special retirement arrangement or enhanced benefits.
4
Mr. Armitage retired December 31, 2012, with full retirement benefits under the old plan formula and qualified for early retirement under the new plan formula. His additional service credit, described below, increased the present value of his nonqualified pension benefit by $118,108.
The retirement planRetirement Plan benefits shown in the table are net present values. The benefits are not payable as a lump sum; they are generally paid as a monthly annuity for the life of the retiree and, if elected, any qualifying survivor. The annual benefit under the retirement plan is calculated using years of service and the average of the annual earnings (salary plus bonus) for the highest five out of the last 10 calendar years of service (final average earnings).
 

42




Post-2009 Plan Information:Following amendment of our retirement planRetirement Plan formulae, employees hired on or after February 1, 2008 have accrued retirement benefits only under the new plan formula. Employees hired before that date have accrued benefits under both the old and new plan formulae. All eligible employees, including those hired on or after February 1, 2008, can retire at age 65 with at least five years of service and receive an unreduced benefit. The annual benefit under the new plan formula is equal to 1.2 percent of final average earnings multiplied by years of service. Early retirement benefits under this plan formula are reduced

P46



6 percent for each year under age 65. Transition benefits were afforded to employees with 50 points (age plus service) or more as of December 31, 2009. These benefits were intended to ease the transition to the new retirement formula for those employees who arewere closer to retirement or havehad been with the company longer.longer at the time the plan was changed. For the transition group, early retirement benefits are reduced 3 percent for each year from age 65 to age 60 and 6 percent for each year under age 60. All named executive officers except Dr. Lundberg are in this transition group.

Pre-2010 Plan Information:Employees hired prior to February 1, 2008 accrued benefits under both plan formulae. For these employees, benefits that accrued before January 1, 2010 were calculated under the old plan formula. The amount of the benefit is calculated using actual years of service through December 31, 2009, while total years of service is used to determine eligibility and early retirement reductions. The benefit amount is increased (but not decreased) proportionately, based on final average earnings at termination compared to final average earnings at December 31, 2009. Full retirement benefits are earned by employees with 90 or more points (the sum of his or her age plus years of service). Employees electing early retirement receive reduced benefits as described below:
The benefit for employees with between 80 and 90 points is reduced by 3 percent for each year under 90 points or age 62.
The benefit for employees who have less than 80 points, but who reached age 55 and have at least 10 years of service, is reduced as described above and is further reduced by 6 percent for each year under 80 points or age 65.

When Mr. Armitage joined the companyNonqualified Deferred Compensation in 1999, he would not have been eligible to receive a retirement benefit prior to age 65. Therefore, the company agreed to provide him with an early retirement benefit based on his actual years of service and earnings, provided he worked until at least age 60. Since Mr. Armitage reached age 60 with 9.75 years of service, for purposes of determining eligibility and calculating his early retirement reduction, he was credited with an additional 10.25 years of service. The additional service credit made him eligible to begin receiving reduced benefits 15 months early, but did not change the timing or amount of his unreduced benefits (shown in the “Pension Benefits in 2012” table). A grant of additional years of service credit to any employee must be approved by the compensation committee of the board of directors.2015
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 2012
NamePlan
Executive
Contributions in
Last Fiscal Year
($)
 1
Registrant
Contributions in
Last Fiscal Year
($)
 2
Aggregate
Earnings in
Last Fiscal Year
($)
Aggregate Withdrawals/ Distributions in Last Fiscal Year
($)
Aggregate
Balance at Last
Fiscal Year End
($)
3
Plan
Executive
Contributions in
Last Fiscal Year
($)
1
Registrant
Contributions in
Last Fiscal Year
($)
2
Aggregate
Earnings in
Last Fiscal Year
($)
Aggregate Withdrawals/ Distributions in Last Fiscal Year
($)
Aggregate
Balance at Last
Fiscal Year End
($)
3
Dr. Lechleiter nonqualified savings
$75,000

$75,000
$279,334



$1,913,988

nonqualified savings
$74,100

$74,100
$300,087

$0
$3,466,951


deferred compensation
$656,250


$312,787



$9,855,721

deferred compensation
$1,249,500


$424,443



$12,069,225


total
$731,250

$75,000
$592,121

$0
$11,769,709

total
$1,323,600

$74,100
$724,530

$0
$15,536,176

Mr. Ricenonqualified savings
$44,400

$44,400
$106,737



$749,503

nonqualified savings
$46,812

$46,812
$102,420

$0
$1,437,499


deferred compensation
$0


$0



$0

deferred compensation
$0


$0



$0


total
$44,400

$44,400
$106,737

$0
$749,503

total
$46,812

$46,812
$102,420

$0
$1,437,499

Dr. Lundbergnonqualified savings
$43,710

$43,710
$26,875



$304,791

nonqualified savings
$44,571

$44,571
$53,817

$0
$698,107


deferred compensation
$0


$0



$0

deferred compensation
$0


$0



$0


total
$43,710

$43,710
$26,875

$0
$304,791

total
$44,571

$44,571
$53,817

$0
$698,107

Mr. Armitagenonqualified savings
$35,454

$35,454
$134,266



$862,867

Mr. Harringtonnonqualified savings
$31,150

$31,150
$2,740



$296,231


deferred compensation
$0


$211,709



$6,588,468

deferred compensation
$0


$4,544



$140,233


total
$35,454

$35,454
$345,975

$0
$7,451,335

total
$31,150

$31,150
$7,284

$0
$436,464

Mr. Conternononqualified savings
$25,170

$25,170
$49,213



$320,381

nonqualified savings
$26,439

$26,439
$53,868

$0
$648,314


deferred compensation
$100,000



$19,708



$631,863

deferred compensation
$100,000


$31,344



$884,918


total
$125,170

$25,170
$68,921

$0
$952,244

total
$126,439

$26,439
$85,212

$0
$1,533,232

1

1    The amounts in this column are also included in the “Summary Compensation Table,” in the “Salary” column (nonqualified savings) or the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column (deferred compensation).
The amounts in this column are also included in the “Summary Compensation Table,” in the “Salary” column (nonqualified savings) or the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column (deferred compensation).
 
2    The amounts in this column are also included in the “Summary Compensation Table,” in the “All Other Compensation” column as a portion of the savings plan match.


43P47



2
3    Of the totals in this column, the following amounts have previously been reported in the “Summary Compensation Table” for this year and for previous years:  
The amounts in this column are also included in the “Summary Compensation Table,” in the “All Other Compensation” column as a portion of the savings plan match.
3
Of the totals in this column, the following amounts have previously been reported in the “Summary Compensation Table” for this year and for previous years:  
Name2012 ($)Previous Years ($)Total ($)2015 ($)Previous Years ($)Total ($)
Dr. Lechleiter$806,250
$8,062,631
$8,868,881
$1,397,700
$10,631,831
$12,029,531
Mr. Rice$88,800
$434,204
$523,004
$93,624
$705,338
$798,962
Dr. Lundberg$87,420
$171,618
$259,038
$89,142
$438,535
$527,677
Mr. Armitage$70,908
$5,935,935
$6,006,843
Mr. Harrington$62,300
$121,800
$184,100
Mr. Conterno$150,340
N/A
$150,340
$152,878
$452,166
$605,044

The "Nonqualified Deferred Compensation"Compensation in 20122015" table above shows information about two company programs: the nonqualified savings plan and the deferred compensation plan.Deferred Compensation Plan. The nonqualified savings plan is designed to allow each employee to contribute up to 6 percent of his or her base salary, and receive a company match, beyond the contribution limits prescribed by the IRS with regard to 401(k) plans. This plan is administered in the same manner as the 401(k) plan,Plan, with the same participation and investment elections. Executive officers and other U.S. executives may also defer receipt of all or part of their cash compensation under the deferred compensation plan.Deferred Compensation Plan. Amounts deferred by executives under this plan are credited with interest at 120 percent of the applicable federal long-term rate as established the preceding December by the U.S. Treasury Department under Section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code with monthly compounding, which was 3.33.2 percent for 20122015 and is 2.93.1 percent for 2013.2016. Participants may elect to receive the funds in a lump sum or in up to 10 annual installments following retirement, but may not make withdrawals during their employment, except in the event of hardship as approved by the compensation committee.Compensation Committee. All deferral elections and associated distribution schedules are irrevocable. Both plans are unfunded and subject to forfeiture in the event of bankruptcy.

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control (as of December 31, 2015)
The following table describes the potential payments and benefits under the company’s compensation and benefit plans and arrangements to which the named executive officers would be entitled upon termination of employment. Except for certain terminations following a change in control of the company, as described below, there are no agreements, arrangements, or plans that entitle named executive officers to severance, perquisites, or other enhanced benefits upon termination of their employment. Any agreement to provide such payments or benefits to a terminating executive officer (other than following a change in control) would be at the discretion of the compensation committee.Compensation Committee.


44P48



Potential Payments Upon Termination of Employment (as of December 31, 2012)
  
Cash
Severance
Payment
 1
Incremental
Pension
Benefit
(present
value)
Continuation
of Medical /
Welfare
Benefits
(present
value)
2
Value of
Acceleration
of Equity
Awards
 3
Excise Tax
Gross-Up
 4
Total
Termination
Benefits
 
Cash
Severance
Payment
1
Continuation
of Medical /
Welfare
Benefits
(present
value)
2
Value of
Acceleration
of Equity
Awards
Total
Termination
Benefits
Dr. Lechleiter Dr. Lechleiter Dr. Lechleiter

Voluntary retirement$0$0$0Voluntary retirement$0$0$0$0
Involuntary retirement or termination$0$0$0$0$0$0Involuntary retirement or termination$0$0$0$0
Involuntary or good-reason termination after change in control$7,200,000$0$15,138$11,896,165$0$19,111,303Involuntary or good reason termination after change in control$7,500,000$16,334$14,738,376$22,254,710
Mr. RiceMr. RiceMr. Rice

Voluntary termination$0$0$0Voluntary termination$0$0$0
Involuntary retirement or termination$0$0$0$0$0$0Involuntary retirement or termination$0$0$0
Involuntary or good-reason termination after change in control$3,762,000$0$33,319$6,020,267$0$9,815,586Involuntary or good reason termination after change in control$3,991,140$287,391$7,234,362$11,512,893
Dr. LundbergDr. LundbergDr. Lundberg

Voluntary termination$0$0$0Voluntary retirement$0$0$0
Involuntary retirement or termination$0$0$0$0$0$0Involuntary retirement or termination$0$0$0
Involuntary or good-reason termination after change in control$3,718,300$0$25,224$4,528,565$0$8,272,089Involuntary or good reason termination after change in control$3,829,849$18,872$6,017,402$9,866,123
Mr. Armitage
5 


Mr. HarringtonMr. Harrington


Voluntary retirement$0$0$0Voluntary retirement$0$0$0
Involuntary retirement or termination$0$0$0$0$0$0Involuntary retirement or termination$0$0$0
Involuntary or good-reason termination after change in control$0$0Involuntary or good reason termination after change in control$2,758,000$265,548$3,922,532$6,946,080
Mr. ConternoMr. Conterno
Mr. Conterno

Voluntary retirement$0$0$0$0$0$0Voluntary termination$0$0$0
Involuntary retirement or termination$0$0$0$0$0$0Involuntary retirement or termination$0$0$0
Involuntary or good-reason termination after change in control$2,343,250$0$29,436$3,880,163$0$6,252,849Involuntary or good reason termination after change in control$2,485,718$31,739$4,305,551$6,823,008
1

1    See “Change-in-Control Severance Pay Plan—Cash Severance Payment” below.

2    See “Accrued Pay and Regular Retirement Benefits” and “Change-in-Control Severance Pay Plan—Continuation of medical and welfare benefits” below.
See “Change-in-Control Severance Pay Plan” below.
2
See “Accrued Pay and Regular Retirement Benefits” and “Change-in-Control Severance Pay Plan—Continuation of medical and welfare benefits” below.
3
Beginning in 2010, equity grants included an individual performance criterion to vest. As a result, even retirement-eligible employees have the possibility of forfeiting their grants.
4
The company eliminated excise tax gross-ups in 2012.
5
Mr. Armitage retired on December 31, 2012.

Accrued Pay and Regular Retirement Benefits.The amounts shown in the table above do not include certain payments and benefits to the extent they are provided on a non-discriminatory basis to salaried employees generally upon termination of employment. These include:
accrued salary and vacation pay.
regular pension benefits under the retirement planRetirement Plan and the nonqualified pension plan. See “Retirement Benefits” above.
welfare benefits provided to all U.S. retirees, including retiree medical and dental insurance. The amounts shown in the table above as “Continuation of Medical / Welfare Benefits” are explained below.
distributions of plan balances under the 401(k) Plan, the nonqualified savings plan, and the nonqualified savings plan.Deferred Compensation Plan. See the narrative following the “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 2012”2015” table for information about these plans.

Deferred Compensation.The amounts shown in the table do not include distributions of plan balances under the deferred compensation plan. Those amountsbalances are shown in the “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in 2012”2015” table.

Death and Disability.A termination of employment due to death or disability does not entitle named executive officers to any payments or benefits that are not available to U.S. salaried employees generally.


45P49



Termination for Cause.Executives terminated for cause receive no severance or enhanced benefits and forfeit any unvested equity grants.

Change-in-Control Severance Pay Plan.As described in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis”CD&A under “Severance Benefits,” the company maintains a change-in-control severance pay plan for nearly all employees, including the named executive officers. The change-in-control plan defines a change in control very specifically, but generally the terms include the occurrence of one of the following: (i) acquisition of 20 percent or more of the company’s stock; (ii) replacement by the shareholders of one half or more of the boardBoard of directors;Directors; (iii) consummation of a merger, share exchange, or consolidation of the company;company (other than a transaction that results in the Lilly shareholders prior to the transaction continuing to hold more than 60% of the voting stock of the combined entity); or (iv) liquidation of the company or sale or disposition of all or substantially all of its assets. The amounts shown in the table for “involuntary or good-reason termination after change in control” are based on the following assumptions and plan provisions:

Covered terminations. The table assumes a termination of employment that is eligible for severance under the terms of the plan, based on the named executive officer’s compensation, benefits, age, and service credit at December 31, 2012.2015. Eligible terminations include an involuntary termination for reasons other than for cause or a voluntary termination by the executive for good reason, within two years following the change in control.
A termination of an executive officer by the company is for cause if it is for any of the following reasons: (i) the employee’s willful and continued refusal to perform, without legal cause, his or her material duties, resulting in demonstrable economic harm to the company; (ii) any act of fraud, dishonesty, or gross misconduct resulting in significant economic harm or other significant harm to the business reputation of the company; or (iii) conviction of or the entering of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony.
A termination by the executive officer is for good reason if it results from: (i) a material diminution in the nature or status of the executive’s position, title, reporting relationship, duties, responsibilities, or authority, or the assignment to him or her of additional responsibilities that materially increase his or her workload; (ii) any reduction in the executive’s then-current base salary; (iii) a material reduction in the executive’s opportunities to earn incentive bonuses below those in effect for the year prior to the change in control; (iv) a material reduction in the executive’s employee benefits from the benefit levels in effect immediately prior to the change in control; (v) the failure to grant to the executive stock options, stock units, performance shares, or similar incentive rights during each 12-month period following the change in control on the basis of a number of shares or units and all other material terms at least as favorable to the executive as those rights granted to him or her on an annualized average basis for the three-year period immediately prior to the change in control; or (vi) relocation of the executive by more than 50 miles.
A termination by the executive officer is for good reason if it results from: (i) a material diminution in the nature or status of the executive’s position, title, reporting relationship, duties, responsibilities, or authority, or the assignment to him or her of additional responsibilities that materially increase his or her workload; (ii) any reduction in the executive’s then-current base salary; (iii) a material reduction in the executive’s opportunities to earn incentive bonuses below those in effect for the year prior to the change in control; (iv) a material reduction in the executive’s employee benefits from the benefit levels in effect immediately prior to the change in control; (v) the failure to grant to the executive stock options, stock units, performance shares, or similar incentive rights during each 12-month period following the change in control on the basis of a number of shares or units and all other material terms at least as favorable to the executive as those rights granted to him or her on an annualized average basis for the three-year period immediately prior to the change in control; or (vi) relocation of the executive by more than 50 miles.

Cash severance payment. The amount of cash severance payment pursuant to the change-in-control plan amounts to the benefit of two times the employee’s 2012executive officer's annual base salary plus two times the employee’sexecutive officer’s bonus target for 2012that year under the bonus plan.
 
Continuation of medical and welfare benefits. This amount represents the present value of the change-in-control plan’s guarantee,provision, following a covered termination, of 18 months of continued coverage equivalent to the company’s current active employee medical, dental, life, and long-term disability insurance. Similar actuarial assumptions to those used to calculate incremental pension benefits apply to the calculation for continuation of medical and welfare benefits, with the addition of actual COBRA rates based on current benefit elections.

Acceleration of equity awards. Upon a covered termination, any unvested equity awards would vest upon consummation of a change in control and a partial payment of outstanding PAs would be made, reduced to reflect the portion of the performance period worked prior to the change in control. Likewise, in the case of a change in control in which Lilly is not the surviving entity, SVAs would pay out based on the change-in-control stock price and be prorated for the portion of the three-year performance period elapsed. The amount in this column represents the value of the acceleration of unvested equity grants.grants, prorated for PAs and SVAs that would have been applicable at December 31, 2015.

P50




Excise tax reimbursementtaxes. Upon a change in control, employees may be subject to certain excise taxes under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code. The company does not reimburse the affected employees for those excise taxes or any income taxes payable by the employee. To reduce the employee's exposure to excise taxes, the employee’s change-in-control benefit may be decreased to maximize the after-tax benefit to the individual.

Payments Upon Change in Control Alone.In general, the change-in-control plan is a “double trigger” plan, meaning payments are made only if the employee suffers a covered termination of employment within two years following the change in control. There are limited exceptions for pro-rata portions of PAs and SVAs, based on performance to the date of the change in control, as noted above under "Acceleration of equity awards."

Compensation Committee Matters

Background

Role of the Independent Consultant In Assessing Executive Compensation
The committee has retained Cimi B. Silverberg of Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc., as its independent compensation consultant. Ms. Silverberg reports directly to the committee. Neither she nor her firm is permitted to have any business or personal relationship with management or the members of the Compensation Committee. The consultant’s responsibilities are to:

Review the company’s total compensation philosophy, peer group, and target competitive positioning for reasonableness and appropriateness
Review the company’s executive compensation program and advise the committee of evolving best practices
Provide independent analyses and recommendations to the committee on the CEO’s pay
Review draft CD&A and related tables for the proxy statement
Proactively advise the committee on best practices for board governance of executive compensation
Undertake special projects at the request of the committee chair

Ms. Silverberg interacts directly with members of company management only on matters under the committee’s oversight and with the knowledge and permission of the committee chair.

Role of Executive Officers and Management In Assessing Executive Compensation
With the oversight of the CEO and the senior vice president of human resources and diversity, the company’s global compensation group formulates recommendations on compensation philosophy, plan design, and compensation for executive officers (other than the CEO, as noted below). The CEO provides the committee with a performance assessment and compensation recommendation for each of the other executive officers. The committee considers those recommendations with the assistance of its consultant. The CEO and the senior vice president of human resources and diversity attend committee meetings but are not present for executive sessions or for any discussion of their own compensation. Only nonemployee directors and the committee’s consultant attend executive sessions.

The CEO does not participate in the formulation or discussion of his pay recommendations and has no prior knowledge of the recommendations that the consultant makes to the committee.

Risk Assessment Process
As a part of the company's overall enterprise risk management program, in 2015 the committee reviewed the company’s compensation policies and practices and concluded that the programs and practices are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the company. The committee noted numerous design features of the company’s cash and equity incentive programs that reduce the likelihood of inappropriate risk-taking, including, but not limited to:


46P51



The committee is comprised of independent directors only.
The committee engages its own independent compensation consultant.
The committee has downward discretion to lower compensation plan payouts.
The committee approves all adjustments to financial results that affect compensation calculations.
Different measures and metrics are used across multiple incentive plans which appropriately balance cash/stock, fixed/variable pay and short-term/long-term incentives.
Incentive plans have predetermined maximum payouts.
Performance objectives are challenging but achievable.
Programs with operational metrics have a continuum of payout multiples based upon achievement of performance milestones, rather than "cliffs" that might encourage sub-optimal or improper behavior.
A compensation recovery policy is in place for all members of senior management; negative compensation consequences can be applied in cases of serious compliance violations.
Meaningful share ownership requirements are in place for all members of senior management and the Board.

Compensation Committee Report
The Compensation Committee evaluates and establishes compensation for executive officers and oversees the deferred compensation plan, the company’s management stock plans, and other management incentive and benefit programs. Management has the primary responsibility for the company’s financial statements and reporting process, including the disclosure of executive compensation. With this in mind, the Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the CD&A above. The committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the CD&A be included in this proxy statement for filing with the SEC.

Compensation Committee
Karen N. Horn, Ph.D., Chair
Ralph Alvarez
Ellen R. Marram
Kathi P. Seifert


P52



following the change in control. Employees do not receive payments upon a change in control alone, except that upon consummation of a change in control, a partial payment of outstanding PAs would be made, reduced to reflect the portion of the performance period worked prior to the change in control. Likewise, in the case of a change in control in which Lilly is not the surviving entity, SVAs would pay out based on the change-in-control stock price and be prorated for the portion of the three-year performance period elapsed.
Ownership of Company StockAudit Matters

Common Stock Ownership by Directors and Executive Officers
The following table sets forth the number of shares of company common stock owned by the directors, the named executive officers, and all directors and executive officers as a group, as of February 22, 2013. None of the stock, stock options, or stock units owned by any of the listed individuals has been pledged as collateral for a loan or other obligation.
Beneficial Owners
Common Stock 1
Stock Units Not Distributable Within 60 days 4
Shares Owned 2
Options Exercisable/Stock Units Distributable Within 60 Days 3
Ralph Alvarez
 
 16,723
 
Robert A. Armitage 5
182,906
 267,471
 
 
Katherine Baicker, Ph.D.
 
 3,083
 
Sir Winfried Bischoff2,000
 2,800
 36,590
 
Enrique A. Conterno81,297
 24,729
 45,674
 
Michael L. Eskew
 
 22,129
 
J. Erik Fyrwald100
 
 40,270
 
Alfred G. Gilman, M.D., Ph.D.
 2,800
 44,221
 
R. David Hoover1,000
 
 21,672
 
Karen N. Horn, Ph.D.
 2,800
 60,681
 
William G. Kaelin, Jr., M.D.
 
 1,798
 
John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.653,571
6 
468,775
 58,778
 
Jan M. Lundberg, Ph.D.120,205
 
 21,552
 
Ellen R. Marram1,000
 2,800
 34,483
 
Douglas R. Oberhelman
 
 16,562
 
Franklyn G. Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D.
 2,800
 51,489
 
Derica W. Rice229,533
 105,185
 29,781
 
Kathi P. Seifert3,533
 2,800
 46,382
 
All directors and executive officers as a group (27 people):1,459,504
 889,657
 722,697
 

1
The sum of the "Shares Owned" and "Options Exercisable/Stock Units Distributable Within 60 Days" columns represents the shares considered "beneficially owned" for purposes of disclosure in the proxy statement. Unless otherwise indicated in a footnote, each person listed in the table possesses sole voting and sole investment power with respect to their shares. No person listed in the table owns more than 0.10 percent of the outstanding common stock of the company. All directors and executive officers as a group own 0.21 percent of the outstanding common stock of the company.
2 This column includes the number of shares of common stock held individually as well as the number of 401(k) plan shares held by the beneficial owners.
3
This column includes stock options exercisable within 60 days and RSUs that vest within 60 days.
4 For the executive officers, this column includes the number of RSUs that will not vest within 60 days. For the independent directors, this column includes the number of stock units credited to the directors' accounts in the Lilly Directors' Deferral Plan.
5 Mr. Armitage retired on December 31, 2012.
6 The shares shown for Dr. Lechleiter include 40,396 shares that are owned by a family foundation for which he is a director. Dr. Lechleiter has shared voting power and shared investment power with respect to the shares held by the foundation.


47



Principal Holders of Stock
To the best of the company’s knowledge, the only beneficial owners of more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of the company’s common stock, as of December 31, 2012, are the shareholders listed below:
Name and AddressNumber of Shares
Beneficially Owned
Percent of Class
Lilly Endowment, Inc. (the Endowment)
2801 North Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46208


135,670,80411.8%



BlackRock, Inc.
40 East 52nd Street
New York, New York 10022
63,874,9765.5%



The Endowment has sole voting and sole investment power with respect to its shares. The board of directors of the Endowment is composed of Thomas M. Lofton, chairman; N. Clay Robbins, president; Mary K. Lisher; Otis R. Bowen, emeritus director; William G. Enright; Daniel P. Carmichael; Charles E. Golden; Eli Lilly II; David N. Shane; and Rev. Dr. Craig R. Dykstra. Each of the Endowment board members, with the exception of Rev. Dykstra, is either directly or indirectly, a shareholder of the company.

BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services for various clients. It has sole voting and sole investment power with respect to its shares.
Items of Business To Be Acted Upon at the Meeting
Item 1. Election of Directors

Under the company’s articles of incorporation, the board is divided into three classes with approximately one-third of the directors standing for election each year. The term for directors elected this year will expire at the annual meeting of shareholders held in 2016. Each of the nominees listed below has agreed to serve that term. If any director is unable to stand for election, the board may, by resolution, provide for a lesser number of directors or designate a substitute.
The board recommends that you vote FOR each of the following nominees:
Ralph Alvarez
Sir Winfried Bischoff
R. David Hoover
Franklyn G. Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D.
Kathi P. Seifert

Biographical information about these nominees and a statement of their qualifications may be found in the “Director Biographies” section.
Item 2.3. Proposal to Ratify the Appointment of Principal Independent Auditor


Audit Committee Oversight of Independent Auditor
The Audit Committee is responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention, and oversight of the independent external auditor, and oversees the process for selecting, reviewing, and evaluating the lead audit partner. Further information regarding the committee's oversight of the independent auditor can be found in the Audit Committee charter, available online at http://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfm, or upon request to the company's corporate secretary.

In connection with the decision regarding whether to re-appoint the independent auditor each year (subject to shareholder ratification), the committee assesses the independent auditor's performance. This assessment examines three primary criteria: (1) the independent auditor's qualifications and experience; (2) the communication and interactions with the auditor over the course of the year; and (3) the auditor's independence, objectivity, and professional skepticism. These criteria are assessed against an internal and an external scorecard, and are discussed with management during a private session, as well as in executive session. The committee also periodically considers whether a rotation of the company's independent auditor is advisable.

Ernst & Young LLP (EY) served as the principal independent auditor for the company in 2015. Based on this year's assessment of EY's performance, the Audit Committee believes that the continued retention of Ernst & Young LLPEY to serve as the company's principal independent external auditor is in the best interests of the company and its investors,shareholders, and has therefore appointedreappointed the firm of Ernst & Young LLPEY as principal independent auditor for the company for the year 2013.2016. In accordance with the bylaws, this appointment is being submitted to the shareholders for ratification.
Ernst & Young LLP served as the principal independent auditor for the company in 2012.
Representatives of Ernst & Young LLPEY are expected to be present at the annual meeting and will be available to respond to questions. Those representatives will have the opportunity to make a statement if they wish to do so.

Board Recommendation on Item 3

The boardBoard recommends that you vote FOR ratifying the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as principal independent auditor for 2013.
Item 3. Advisory Vote on Compensation Paid to Named Executive Officers2016.

Our compensation philosophy is designedAudit Committee Report

The Audit Committee reviews the company’s financial reporting process on behalf of the Board. Management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements and the reporting process, including the systems of internal controls and disclosure controls. In this context, the committee has met and held discussions with management and the independent auditor. Management represented to attractthe committee that the company’s consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and retain highly-talented individualsthe committee has reviewed and motivate themdiscussed the audited financial statements and related disclosures with management and the independent auditor, including a review of the significant management judgments underlying the financial statements and disclosures.

The independent auditor reports to the Audit Committee, which has sole authority to appoint and to replace the independent auditor.

The committee has discussed with the independent auditor matters required to be discussed with the Audit Committee by the standards of the Public Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the NYSE, including the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant judgments,

48P53



create long-termand the clarity of the disclosures in the financial statements. In addition, the committee has received the written disclosures and the letter from the independent auditor required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and has discussed with the independent auditor the auditor’s independence from the company and its management. In concluding that the auditor is independent, the committee determined, among other things, that the nonaudit services provided by EY (as described below) were compatible with its independence. Consistent with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Sarbanes-Oxley Act), the committee has adopted policies to ensure the independence of the independent auditor, such as prior committee approval of nonaudit services and required audit partner rotation.

The committee discussed with the company’s internal and independent auditors the overall scope and plans for their respective audits, including internal control testing under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The committee periodically meets with the internal and independent auditors, with and without management present, and in private sessions with members of senior management (such as the chief financial officer and the chief accounting officer) to discuss the results of their examinations, their evaluations of the company’s internal controls, and the overall quality of the company’s financial reporting. The committee also periodically meets in executive session.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the committee recommended to the Board (and the Board subsequently approved the recommendation) that the audited financial statements be included in the company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, for filing with the SEC. The committee has also appointed the company’s independent auditor, subject to shareholder valueratification, for 2016.

Audit Committee
Michael L. Eskew, Chair
Katherine Baicker, Ph.D.
Kathi P. Seifert
Jackson P. Tai

Services Performed by achieving top-tierthe Independent Auditor
The Audit Committee preapproves all services performed by the independent auditor, in part to assess whether the provision of such services might impair the auditor’s independence. The committee’s policy and procedures are as follows:
Audit services:The committee approves the annual audit services engagement and, if necessary, any changes in terms, conditions, and fees resulting from changes in audit scope, company structure, or other matters. Audit services include internal controls attestation work under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The committee may also preapprove other audit services, which are those services that only the independent auditor reasonably can provide.
Audit-related services: Audit-related services are assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or reviews of the financial statements, and that are traditionally performed by the independent auditor. The committee believes that the provision of these services does not impair the independence of the auditor.
Tax services: The committee believes that, in appropriate cases, the independent auditor can provide tax compliance services, tax planning, and tax advice without impairing the auditor’s independence.
Other services: The committee may approve other services to be provided by the independent auditor if (i) the services are permissible under SEC and PCAOB rules, (ii) the committee believes the provision of the services would not impair the independence of the auditor, and (iii) management believes that the auditor is the best choice to provide the services.
Approval process: At the beginning of each audit year, management requests prior committee approval of the annual audit, statutory audits, and quarterly reviews for the upcoming audit year as well as any other services known at that time. Management will also present at that time an estimate of all fees for the upcoming audit year. As specific engagements are identified thereafter, they are brought forward to the committee for approval. To the extent approvals are required between regularly scheduled committee meetings, preapproval authority is delegated to the committee chair.


P54



For each engagement, management provides the committee with information about the services and fees, sufficiently detailed to allow the committee to make an informed judgment about the nature and scope of the services and the potential for the services to impair the independence of the auditor.

After the end of the audit year, management provides the committee with a summary of the actual fees incurred for the completed audit year.

Independent Auditor Fees
The following table shows the fees incurred for services rendered on a worldwide basis by EY in 2015 and 2014. All such services were pre-approved by the committee in accordance with the pre-approval policy.
 2015 ($ millions)2014 ($ millions)
Audit Fees    
Annual audit of consolidated and subsidiary financial statements, including Sarbanes-Oxley 404 attestation$13.1$10.3
Reviews of quarterly financial statements  
Other services normally provided by the auditor in connection with statutory and regulatory filings  
Audit-Related Fees   
Assurance and related services reasonably related to the performance of the audit or reviews of the financial statements$0.7$1.3
 
2015 and 2014: primarily related to employee benefit plan and other ancillary audits, and due diligence services on potential acquisitions  
Tax Fees  $5.6$2.3
2015 and 2014: primarily related to consulting and compliance services  
All Other Fees  $0.1$0.1
2015 and 2014: primarily related to consulting and compliance services  
Total  $19.5$14.0



P55



Shareholder Proposal


Item 4. Proposal Seeking a Report Regarding How We Select the Countries In Which We Operate or Invest

National Center for Public Policy Research, 20 F Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001, beneficial owner of approximately 100 shares, has submitted the following proposal:

RESOLVED: The proponent requests the Board review the Company’s guidelines for selecting countries/regions for its operations and issue a report, at reasonable expense excluding any proprietary information, to shareholders by December 2016. The report should identify Lilly’s criteria for investing in, operating in and withdrawing from high-risk regions.

Supporting Statement
If the Company chooses, the review may consider developing guidelines on investing or withdrawing from areas where the government has engaged in systematic human rights violations.

In its review and report, the Company might also consider a congruency analysis between its stated corporate performance while embracingvalues and Company operations in certain regions, which raises an issue of misalignment with those corporate values, and stating the company’sjustification for such exceptions.

For example, our Company bashed a state-level religious freedom law as “bad for Indiana and for business.” In doing so, the Company aligned itself with an anti-religious movement that falsely claims religious freedom laws are masks for anti-homosexual bigotry. Yet, the Company has done business in regions where homosexual behavior is actually criminalized. These two positions are incongruous.

Additionally, on its website, the Company boasts about its commitment to women and diversity. However, the Company has done business in Iran where women are treated as second-class citizens. These two positions are incongruous.

The proponent believes that Lilly’s record to date demonstrates a gap between its lofty rhetoric and its performance. The requested report would play a role in illuminating and addressing the factors accounting for this gap.

Statement in Opposition to Shareholder Proposal

Our vision is to make a significant contribution to humanity by improving global health in the 21st century andcreating a sustainable global food supply. We are committed to the goal of making life better for people around the world. For that reason, our products are sold worldwide, in approximately 125 countries, and we have built a global infrastructure to support this business. We manufacture and distribute our products through facilities in the United States (U.S.), Puerto Rico and 14 other countries.

Consistent with our longstanding values of integrity, excellence, and respect for people. Our programs seek to:
closely link compensationpeople, in all countries in which we operate, we treat our employees fairly and with company performancerespect and individual performance
foster a long-term focus
provide compensation consistent with the level of job responsibilityfollow local labor laws. We believe embracing diversity means understanding, respecting, and the market for pharmaceutical talent
be efficientvaluing differences, and egalitarian
appropriately mitigate risk
consider shareholder input.we have taken several steps to ensure that others understand our commitment to diversity and protecting human rights.

The compensation committee and the board of directors believe that our executive compensation aligns well with our philosophy and with corporate performance. We urge shareholders to read the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this proxy statement for a more detailed discussion of our executive compensation programs and how they reflect our philosophy and are linked to company performance.

Executive compensation is an important matterGlobally, we set strict expectations for our shareholders. We havesuppliers and vendors relating to human rights. Lilly’s Supplier Code of Business Conduct, a strong record of engagementpublicly available document, sets an expectation that: “We conduct our business activities with shareholders on compensation mattersrespect for people and have made a number of changescommitment to our programsdiversity, equal opportunity, and disclosures in responsefreedom from exposure to shareholder input, including several enhancements discussed in the “Compensation Discussionimproper conduct and Analysis.discrimination.

We request shareholder approval, on an advisory basis, ofSince 2010, Lilly has been a signatory to the compensation of the company’s named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statementUnited Nations Global Compact (UNGC), a commitment to 10 universally accepted principles in the “Compensation Discussionareas of human rights, labor, the environment, and Analysis,” the compensation tables, and related narratives. Asanti-corruption. Lilly publicly issues an advisory vote, this proposal is not bindingannual Corporate Responsibility report as a Communication on the company. However, the compensation committee values input from shareholders and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future executive compensation decisions.
The board recommends that you vote FOR the approval, on an advisory basis, of the compensation paid to the named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables, and related narratives in this proxy statement.
Item 4. Reapproval of Material Terms of Performance GoalsProgress for the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code limits the amount of compensation expense that the company can deduct for income tax purposes. In general, a public corporation cannot deduct compensation in excess of
$1 million paid to any of the named executive officers in the proxy statement. However, compensation that qualifies as “performance-based” is not subject to this deduction limitation.

The 2002 Lilly Stock Plan allows the grant of PAs and SVAs that qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m). One of the conditions to qualify as performance-based is that the material terms of the performance goals must be approved by the shareholders at least every five years. The last such approval for the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan occurred in 2008. To preserve our ability to fully deduct the compensation expense related to the awards, we are now asking the shareholders to reapprove the performance goals. We are not amending or altering the 2002 Plan. If this proposal is not adopted, the compensation committee will continue to grant PAs and SVAs under the 2002 Plan but certain awards to executive officers would no longer be fully tax deductible by the company.

Shares Subject to Plan
The maximum number of shares of Lilly stock that may be issued or transferred for grants under the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan is the sum of:
119,000,000 shares;
5,243,448 shares that were available under the previous shareholder-approved plan (the 1998 Lilly Stock Plan) at the time that plan terminated in April 2002;
any shares subject to grants under the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan or prior shareholder approved stock plans (the 1989, 1994, and 1998 Lilly Stock Plans) that are not issued or transferred due to termination, lapse, or forfeiture of the grant; and
any shares exchanged by grantees as payment to the company of the exercise price of stock options granted under the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan or prior shareholder approved stock plans.

The maximum number is subject to adjustment for stock splits, stock dividends, spin-offs, reclassifications or other relevant changes affecting Lilly stock.UNGC, which

49P56




Grants Underincludes a section on “Upholding Human Rights throughout the Plan
AllSupply Chain” and outlines our investments in our employees of the company, including officers, are eligible to participate in the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan. Currently approximately 38,000 employees, including all 14 executive officers, are eligible to participate. The compensation committee may make grants to officers and employees in its discretion. The board may grant stock options under the 2002 Plan to nonemployee directors. There are currently 13 nonemployee directors.their well-being. This report also includes information on our diversity initiatives.

Stock OptionsAs our 2012-2013 Corporate Responsibility report notes: “In mid-2012, Lilly, in conjunction with the other participating companies of PSCI [Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Initiative], began developing baseline supplier questionnaires that address not only compliance with HSE standards, but also human rights and Stock Appreciation Rights
The committee may grant nonqualified options, incentive stock options, or other tax favored stock options underethics. We also began collaboration with PSCI to conduct joint industry audits of selected suppliers. These on-site audits are aimed at assessing and verifying the Internal Revenue Code. The committee establishes the option price, which may not be less than 100 percentadherence of the fair market value of the stock on the date of grant. Options may not be repriced. The committee also establishes the vesting dateour suppliers to high standards in HSE performance, human rights, and the term of the option.ethics.”

The committee may also grant stock appreciationThis proposal requests that the Board review our guidelines for selecting countries/regions for our operations and that we issue a report outlining criteria for operating in high-risk regions. Given our publicly stated commitments to global health, diversity and inclusion, and human rights, (SARs)—the right to receive an amount based on appreciation in the fair market value of shares of Lilly stock over a base price. If granted without a related stock option, the committee establishes the base price of the SARs, which maywe do not be less than 100 percent of the fair market value of the stock on the date of grant, and the settlement or exercise date, which may not be more than
11 years after the grant date. If granted in connection with a stock option, the holder of SARs may, upon exercise, surrender the related options and receive payment, in the form of Lilly stock, equal to the excess of the fair market value of Lilly stock over the exercise price on the date of exercise multiplied by the number of shares exercised. The price and term of the SARs mirror those of the related stock option, and the SARs automatically terminate to the extent the related options are exercised. Effectively, these awards give the holder the benefit of the related stock options (in the form of shares of Lilly stock) without requiring payment of the exercise price.

No grantee may receive options and SARs, considered together,believe this report would provide new meaningful information for more than 3,500,000 shares under the
2002 Plan in any period of three consecutive calendar years.

Performance Awards
The committee may grant PAs under which payment is made in shares of Lilly stock, cash, or both if the financial performance of the company or a subsidiary, division, or other business unit of the company selected by the committee meets certain performance goals during an award period.its shareholders.

Performance Goals. The committee establishes the performance goals at the beginning of the award period basedBoard Recommendation on one or more performance goals specified in the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan. The material terms of those performance goals are:Item 4
earnings per share
net income
divisional income
corporate or divisional revenue
EVA® (after-tax operating profit less the annual total cost of capital)
Market Value Added (the difference between a company's fair market value, as reflected primarily in its stock price, and the economic book value of capital employed)
any of the foregoing goals before the effect of acquisitions, divestitures, accounting changes, and restructuring, special charges, or other unusual gains or losses (as determined according to criteria established by the committee)
total shareholder return
other Lilly stock price goals.


The committee also establishes the award period (four or more consecutive fiscal quarters), the threshold, target and maximum performance levels, and the number of shares or dollar amounts payable at various performance levels from the threshold to the maximum. Pursuant to these provisions, the committee currently grants PAs based on EPS and SVAs based on stock price goals.
The maximum number of shares that may be received by an individual in payment of PAs in any calendar year is 600,000. The committee can elect to pay cash in lieu of part or all of the shares of Lilly stock payable under a PA, and such cash payment is counted as a payment of shares (based on the market value of Lilly stock on the payment date) for purposes of determining compliance with the 600,000 share limit. In order to receive payment, a grantee must generally remain employed by the company until the end of the award period. The committee may impose additional conditions on a grantee's entitlement to receive payment under a PA.

50




At any time prior to payment, the committee can adjust the performance goals and/or the payment computation for the effect of significant events or circumstances that have a substantial effect on the performance goals and would otherwise make application of the performance goals unfair. However, the committee may not increase the amount that would otherwise be payable to individuals who are subject to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Restricted Stock Grants and Stock Units
The committee may issue or transfer shares under a restricted stock grant. The grant will set forth a restriction period during which the shares may not be transferred. If the grantee's employment terminates during the restriction period, the grant terminates and the shares are returned to the company. However, the committee can provide complete or partial exceptions to that requirement as it deems equitable. If the grantee remains employed beyond the end of the restriction period, the restrictions lapse and the shares become freely transferable.

The committee may grant stock unit awards subject to vesting and transfer restrictions and conditions of payment determined by the committee. The value of each stock unit equals the fair market value of Lilly stock and may (but need not) include the right to receive the equivalent of dividends on the shares granted. Payment is made in the form of Lilly stock.

Authority of Committee
The 2002 Lilly Stock Plan is administered and interpreted by the committee, each member of which must be a “nonemployee” director within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and an “outside director” within the meaning of section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. As to grants to employees, the committee selects persons to receive grants from among the eligible employees, determines the type of grants and number of shares to be awarded, and sets the terms and conditions of the grants. The committee may establish rules for administration of the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan and may delegate authority to others for plan administration, subject to limitations imposed by SEC and IRS rules and state law.

Other Information
The 2002 Lilly Stock Plan remains effective until April 20, 2020, unless earlier terminated by the board. The board may amend the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan as it deems advisable, except that shareholder approval is required for any amendment that would
(i) allow the repricing of stock options below the original option price, (ii) allow the grant of stock options at an option price below fair market value of Lilly stock on the date of grant, (iii) increase the number of shares authorized for issuance or transfer, or (iv) increase any of the maximum limits established for stock options and PAs.

The committee may provide in the grant agreement, or by subsequent action, that any or all of the following shall occur in the event of a change in control (as defined in Article 12 of the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan), in order to preserve all of the grantee's rights: (i) any outstanding stock option not already vested shall become immediately exercisable; (ii) any restriction periods on restricted stock grants shall immediately lapse; and (iii) outstanding PAs and SVAs will be vested and paid out based on a payout level up to the maximum, prorated for the number of months elapsed and compared to the number of months in the award period.

The future amounts that will be received by grantees under the 2002 Plan are not determinable. In 2012, the named executive officers received PA and SVA grants as set forth on page 39 in the "Grants of Plan-Based Awards During 2012" table. The executive officers as a group (14 officers) received grants for approximately 776,000 shares (50/50 split between PAs and SVAs) and all other employees (approximately 6,650 employees) received grants for approximately 3,435,000 shares (comprised of approximately 1,388,000 RSUs, 1,175,500 SVAs, and 871,500 PAs).

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
The following table presents information as of December 31, 2012, regarding our compensation plans under which shares of Lilly common stock have been authorized for issuance.

51



Plan category(a) Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants, and rights(b) Weighted-average exercise
price of outstanding options,
warrants, and rights
(c) Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a))
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders27,229,455

$63.8991,863,392
Equity compensation plan not approved by security holders
1 
2,200

$74.39
Total27,231,655

$63.8991,863,392

1Represents shares in the Lilly GlobalShares Stock Plan, which permitted the company to grant stock options to nonmanagement employees worldwide. The plan is administered by the senior vice president responsible for human resources. The stock options are nonqualified for U.S. tax purposes. The option price cannot be less than the fair market value at the time of grant. The options shall not exceed 11 years in duration and shall be subject to vesting schedules established by the plan administrator. There are provisions for early vesting and early termination of the options in the event of retirement, disability, and death. In the event of stock splits or other recapitalizations, the administrator may adjust the number of shares available for grant, the number of shares subject to outstanding grants, and the exercise price of outstanding grants.

The boardBoard recommends that you vote FOR reapproval of the material terms of the performance goals for the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan.AGAINST this proposal.

Other Information

Meeting and Voting Logistics


Additional items of business
We do not expect any items of business other than those above because the deadline for shareholder proposals and nominations has already passed. Nonetheless, if necessary, the accompanying proxy gives discretionary authority to the persons named on the proxy with respect to any other matters that might be brought before the meeting. Those persons intend to vote that proxy in accordance with their best judgment.

Voting
Shareholders as of the close of business on March 1, 2013February 26, 2016 (the record date) may vote at the annual meeting. You have one vote for each share of common stock you held on the record date, including shares:
held directly in your name as the shareholder of record
held for you in an account with a broker, bank, or other nominee
attributed to your account in the 401(k) plan.

If you are a shareholder of record, youYou may vote your shares in person at the meeting. However, we encourage you to vote by mail, by telephone, or on the Internet even if you plan to attend the meeting.

Required vote
Below are the vote requirements for the various proposals.proposals:
The five nominees for director will be elected if the votes cast for the nominee exceed the votes cast against the nominee. Abstentions will not count as votes cast either for or against a nominee.
The following items of business will be approved if the votes cast for the proposal exceed those cast against theproposal:
advisory approval of executive compensation;
ratification of the appointment of principal independent auditor;
advisory approval of executive compensation; and
reapproval of the material terms of the performance goals for the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan.

ratification of the appointment of principal independent auditor; and
shareholder proposal seeking a report regarding how we select the countries in which we operate.
Abstentions will not be counted either for or against these proposals.

Quorum
A majority of the outstanding shares, present or represented by proxy, constitutes a quorum for the annual meeting. As of the record date,1,129,678,645date, 1,104,492,346 shares of company common stock were issued and outstanding.

P57




Voting by proxy
If you are a shareholder of record, you may vote your proxy by any one of the following methods:


52



On the Internet.You may vote online at www.proxyvote.com. Follow the instructions on your proxy card or notice. If you received these materials electronically, follow the instructions in the e-mail message that notified you of their availability. Voting on the Internet has the same effect as voting by mail. If you vote on the Internet, do not return your proxy card.
By mail. Sign and date each proxy card you receive and return it in the prepaid envelope. Sign your name exactly as it appears on the proxy. If you are signing in a representative capacity (for example, as an attorney-in-fact, executor, administrator, guardian, trustee, or the officer or agent of a corporation or partnership), please indicate your name and your title or capacity. If the stock is held in custody for a minor (for example, under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act), the custodian should sign, not the minor. If the stock is held in joint ownership, one owner may sign on behalf of all owners. If you return your signed proxy but do not indicate your voting preferences, we will vote on your behalf with the board’s recommendations.
If you did not receive a proxy card in the materials you received from the company and you wish to vote by mail rather than by telephone or on the Internet, you may request a paper copy of these materials and a proxy card by calling 317-433-5112. If you received a notice or an e-mail message notifying you of the electronic availability of these materials, please provide the control number, along with your name and mailing address.
8
On the Internet. You may vote online at www.proxyvote.com. Follow the instructions on your proxy card or notice. If you received these materials electronically, follow the instructions in the e-mail message that notified you of their availability. Voting on the Internet has the same effect as voting by mail. If you vote on the Internet, do not return your proxy card.
)
By telephone. Shareholders in the U.S., Puerto Rico, and Canada may vote by telephone by following the instructions on your proxy card or notice. If you received these materials electronically, follow the instructions in the e-mail message that notified you of their availability. Voting by telephone has the same effect as voting by mail. If you vote by telephone, do not return your proxy card.
*
By mail. Sign and date each proxy card you receive and return it in the prepaid envelope. Sign your name exactly as it appears on the proxy. If you are signing in a representative capacity (for example, as an attorney-in-fact, executor, administrator, guardian, trustee, or the officer or agent of a corporation or partnership), please indicate your name and your title or capacity. If the stock is held in custody for a minor (for example, under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act), the custodian should sign, not the minor. If the stock is held in joint ownership, one owner may sign on behalf of all owners. If you return your signed proxy but do not indicate your voting preferences, we will vote on your behalf with the Board’s recommendations.
If you did not receive a proxy card in the materials you received from the company and you wish to vote by mail rather than by telephone or on the Internet, you may request a paper copy of these materials and a proxy card by calling 855-731-6026 (toll free) or 317-433-5112. If you received a notice or an e-mail message notifying you of the electronic availability of these materials, please provide the control number, along with your name and mailing address.  

You have the right to revoke your proxy at any time before the meeting by (i) notifying the company’s secretary in writing, or (ii) delivering a later-dated proxy via the Internet, by mail, or by telephone. If you are a shareholder of record, you may also revoke your proxy by voting in person at the meeting.

Voting shares held by a broker
If your shares are held by a broker, the broker will ask you how you want your shares to be voted. You may instruct your broker or other nominee to vote your shares by following instructions that the broker or nominee provides to you. Most brokers offer voting by mail, by telephone, and on the Internet.

If you give the broker instructions, your shares will be voted as you direct. If you do not give instructions, one of two things can happen, depending on the type of proposal. For the ratification of the auditor, the broker may vote your shares in its discretion. For all other proposals, the broker may not vote your shares at all.

Voting shares held in the 401(k) plan
You may instruct the plan trustee on how to vote your shares in the 401(k) plan via the Internet, by mail, or by telephone as described above, except that, if you vote by mail, the card that you use will be a voting instruction cardform rather than a proxy card.

In addition, unless you decline, your vote will apply to a proportionate number of other shares held by participants in the 401(k) plan for which voting directions are not received (except for a small number of shares from a prior stock ownership plan, which can be voted only on the directions of the participants to whose accounts the shares are credited).

All participants are named fiduciaries under the terms of the 401(k) plan and under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for the limited purpose of voting shares credited to their accounts and the portion of undirected shares to which their vote applies. Under ERISA, fiduciaries are required to act prudently in making voting decisions.

If you do not want to have your vote applied to the undirected shares, you must so indicate when you vote. Otherwise, the trustee will automatically apply your voting preferences to the undirected shares proportionally with

P58



all other participants who elected to have their votes applied in this manner.

If you do not vote, your shares will be voted by other plan participants who have elected to have their voting preferences applied proportionally to all shares for which voting instructions are not otherwise received.

Proxy cards and notices
If you received more than one proxy card, notice, or e-mail related to proxy materials, you hold shares in more than one account. To ensure that all your shares are voted, sign and return each card. Alternatively, if you vote by

53



telephone or on the Internet, you will need to vote once for each proxy card, notice, or e-mail you receive. If you do not receive a proxy card, you may have elected to receive your proxy statement electronically, in which case you should have received an e-mail with directions on how to access the proxy statement and how to vote your shares. If you wish to request a paper copy of these materials and a proxy card, please call 855-731-6026 (toll free) or 317-433-5112.

Vote tabulation
Votes are tabulated by an independent inspector of election, IVS Associates, Inc.

Attending the annual meeting
Attendance at the meeting will be limited to shareholders of record, those holding proxies from shareholders of record, and invited guests from the media and financial community. All shareholders of record as of the record date may attend by presenting the admission ticket that appears at the end of this proxy statement. Please fill it out and bring it with you to the meeting. The meeting will be held at the Lilly Center Auditorium. Please use the Lilly Center entrance to the south of the fountain at the intersection of Delaware and McCarty streets. You will need to pass through security, including a metal detector. Present your ticket to an usher at the meeting.

Parking will be available on a first-come, first-served basis in the garage indicated on the map at the end of this report. If you have questions about admittance or parking, you may call 855-731-6026 (toll free) or 317-433-5112 (prior to the annual meeting).

The 20142017 annual meeting
The company’s 20142017 annual meeting is currently scheduled for May 5, 2014.

Shareholder proposals
If a shareholder wishes to have a proposal considered for inclusion in next year’s proxy statement, he or she must submit the proposal in writing so that we receive it by November 25, 2013. Proposals should be addressed to the company’s corporate secretary, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285. In addition, the company’s bylaws provide that any shareholder wishing to propose any other business at the annual meeting must give the company written notice by November 25, 2013 and no earlier than September 22, 2013. That notice must provide certain other information as described in the bylaws. Copies of the bylaws are available online at http://investor.lilly.com/governance.cfm or upon request to the company’s corporate secretary.1, 2017.
Other Matters

Householding
We have adopted a procedure approved by the SEC called "householding." Under the householding procedure, certain shareholders, whether they own registered shares or shares in street name, who have the same address will receive only one set of proxy materials, unless one or more of the shareholders at that address has previously notified us that they want to receive separate copies. Each 401(k) Plan participant will continue to receive a copy of all of the proxy materials. Regardless of how you own your shares, if you received a single set of proxy materials as a result of householding, and one or more shareholders at your address would like to have separate copies of these materials with respect the meeting or in the future, please contact Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. at 1-866-540-7095.

Other information regarding the company’s proxy solicitation
We will pay all expenses in connection with our solicitation of proxies. We will pay brokers, nominees, fiduciaries, or other custodians their reasonable expenses for sending proxy material to and obtaining instructions from persons for whom they hold stock of the company. We expect to solicit proxies primarily by mail, and email, but directors, officers, and other employees of the company may also solicit in person or by telephone, fax, or email. We have retained Georgeson LLC to assist in the distribution and solicitation of proxies. Georgeson may solicit proxies by personal interview, telephone, fax, mail, and email. We expect that the fee for those services will not exceed $17,500 plus reimbursement of customary out-of-pocket expenses.





P59



Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliancebeneficial ownership reporting compliance
Under SEC rules, our directors and executive officers are required to file with the SEC reports of holdings and changes in beneficial ownership of company stock. We have reviewed copies of reports provided to the company, as well as other records and information. Based on that review, we concluded that all reports were timely filed, except that, due to administrative errors, Dr. Susan Mahony was late in reporting a stock sale and Bryce Carmine (now retired) was late in reporting his annual Form 5 information. Additionally, we recently discovered that, due to an administrative error, an RSU grant made to Dr. John Bamforth (Dr. Mahony's husband) in December 2009 had not been incorporated into Dr. Mahony's Section 16 holdings or related reports. Each filing was made promptly after the issue was discovered.filed.

Other Information Regarding the Company’s Proxy Solicitation
We will pay all expenses in connection with our solicitation of proxies. We will pay brokers, nominees, fiduciaries, or other custodians their reasonable expenses for sending proxy material to and obtaining instructions from persons for whom they hold stock of the company. We expect to solicit proxies primarily by mail, but directors, officers, and other employees of the company may also solicit in person or by telephone, fax, or electronic mail. We have retained Georgeson Inc. to assist in the distribution and solicitation of proxies. Georgeson may solicit proxies by personal interview, telephone, fax, mail, and electronic mail. We expect that the fee for those services will not exceed $17,500 plus reimbursement of customary out-of-pocket expenses.
By order of the boardBoard of directors,Directors,

James B. Lootens
Secretary
March 25, 201321, 2016


54P60



Appendix A - Summary of Adjustments Related to the Annual Bonus and Performance Award

Consistent with past practice, the Compensation Committee adjusted the reported financial results on which the 2015 annual bonus and the 2014-2015 Performance Awards were determined to eliminate the distorting effect of certain unusual items on incentive compensation performance measures. The adjustments are intended to:
align award payments with the underlying performance of the core business
avoid volatile, artificial inflation or deflation of awards due to unusual items in the award year, and, where relevant, or the previous (comparator) year
eliminate certain counterproductive short-term incentives—for example, incentives to refrain from acquiring new technologies, to defer disposing of underutilized assets, or to defer settling legacy legal proceedings to protect current bonus payments.
facilitate comparisons with peer companies.

To assure the integrity of the adjustments, the Compensation Committee establishes adjustment guidelines in the first 90 days of the performance period. These guidelines are generally consistent with the company guidelines for reporting non-GAAP financial measure to the investment community, which are reviewed by the Audit Committee. The adjustments apply equally to income and expense items. The Compensation Committee reviews all adjustments and retains downward discretion, i.e., discretion to reduce compensation below the amounts that are yielded by the adjustment guidelines.

Adjustments for 2015 Bonus Plan
For the 2015 bonus calculations, the Compensation Committee made the following adjustments to reported EPS consistent with our external reporting of non-GAAP financial measures:
Eliminated the impact of the charges recognized for acquired in-process research and development related to collaborations and acquisitions.
Eliminated the impact of significant asset impairments, restructuring and other special charges
Eliminated the impact of certain amortization of intangible assets.
Eliminated the impact of the inventory step-up related to inventories assumed with the acquisition of Novartis Animal Health
Eliminated the impact of the debt extinguishment loss related to the repurchase of $1.65 billion of debt.

The Compensation Committee made two additional adjustments to reported EPS when calculating adjusted non-GAAP EPS under the bonus plan. When the Compensation Committee set 2015 bonus targets, the unprecedented impact of the strengthening of the U.S. dollar on revenue and EPS was not contemplated. The committee holds management accountable for absorbing a reasonable level of foreign currency fluctuation as part of normal business operations for a global company. However, the committee’s adjustment guidelines permit the committee to adjust revenue and EPS results in extreme conditions such as those experienced in 2015. The committee reviewed the impact of foreign currency exchange on revenues and EPS over several years to establish a reasonable amount that management should be expected to absorb as part of normal business operations. Foreign currency impact outside this range was viewed as extraordinary. Accordingly, the committee adjusted the 2015 results to neutralize the extraordinary portion of the foreign currency exchange impact on revenue and EPS. Additionally, when the Compensation Committee set 2015 bonus targets, the transfer of the commercialization rights for Erbitux in North America to Lilly (which occurred in October 2015) was not contemplated. Accordingly, the committee adjusted the 2015 results to neutralize the expected revenue and EPS impact of the transfer of commercialization rights.




P61




Reconciliations of these adjustments to our reported revenue are below.
(Dollars in millions)2015
Revenue as reported$19,959
Transfer of Erbitux commercialization rights adjustment$(76)
Foreign currency adjustment$689
Adjusted Non-GAAP Revenue$20,572

Reconciliations of these adjustments to our reported EPS are below.
2015
EPS as reported$2.26
Eliminate certain amortization of intangible assets$0.39
Eliminate debt extinguishment loss$0.09
Eliminate inventory step-up for Novartis Animal Health$0.10
Eliminate acquired in process research and development charges$0.33
Eliminate asset impairments, restructuring and other special charges$0.25
Non-GAAP EPS$3.43
Transfer of Erbitux commercialization rights adjustment$(0.01)
Foreign currency adjustment$0.07
Adjusted Non-GAAP EPS$3.49
*Numbers may not add due to rounding

Adjustments for 2014-2015 PA
For the 2014-2015 PA payout calculations, the Compensation Committee made the following adjustments to reported EPS consistent with our reporting of non-GAAP financial measures:
2015: Eliminated the impact of certain amortization of intangible assets.
2015: Eliminated the impact of the debt extinguishment loss.
2015: Eliminated the impact of inventory step-up for Novartis Animal Health.
2015, 2014 and 2013: Eliminated the impact of the charges recognized for acquired in-process research and development.
2015, 2014 and 2013: Eliminated the impact of asset impairments, restructuring, and other special charges.
2014: Eliminated the impact of the charge for an extra year of the U.S. Branded Prescription Drug Fee.
2014: Eliminated the impact of gain related to transfer of our linagliptin and empagliflozin commercial rights in certain countries to Boehringer Ingelheim.
2013: Eliminated the impact of income received related to the termination of the exenatide collaboration with Amylin.

When the Compensation Committee set 2014-2015 PA targets, the acquisitions of Novartis Animal Health (which occurred in January 2015) and Lohmann Animal Health (which occurred in April 2014) were not contemplated. Accordingly, the committee adjusted the 2015 and 2014 results to neutralize the expected EPS impact of the acquisitions.

When the Compensation Committee set 2014-2015 PA targets, the exclusion of certain amortization for intangible assets from non-GAAP financial measures (which began in January 2015) was not contemplated. Accordingly, the committee adjusted the 2015 non-GAAP results to neutralize the EPS impact of this change.

When the Compensation Committee set 2014-2015 Performance Award targets, the transfer of the commercialization rights for Erbitux in North America to Lilly (which occurred in October 2015) was not contemplated. Accordingly, the committee adjusted the 2015 results to neutralize the expected EPS impact of the transfer of commercialization rights.

P62





Reconciliations of these adjustments to our reported EPS are below.

 20152014
% Growth
2015 vs. 2014
2013
% Growth
2014 vs. 2013
EPS as reported$2.26$2.23(3.0)%$4.32(46.1)%
Eliminate certain amortization of intangible assets$0.39   
Eliminate debt extinguishment loss$0.09   
Eliminate inventory step-up for Novartis Animal Health$0.10   
Eliminate acquired in process research and development charges$0.33$0.12 $0.03 
Eliminate asset impairments, restructuring and other special charges$0.25$0.38 $0.08 
Eliminate additional U.S. Drug Fee$0.11  
Eliminate gain related to transfer of commercial rights to Boehringer Ingelheim$(0.06)  
Eliminate income from the termination of the exenatide collaboration with Amylin $(0.29) 
Non-GAAP EPS$3.43$2.7823.4%$4.15(33.0)%
Novartis Animal Health acquisition adjustment$0.13  
Lohmann Animal Health acquisition adjustment$0.06$0.05  
Certain amortization of intangible assets$(0.39)  
Transfer of Erbitux commercialization rights adjustment$(0.01)  
Adjusted Non-GAAP EPS$3.22$2.8313.8%$4.15(31.8)%
*Numbers may not add due to rounding     


P63





P64



Annual Meeting Admission Ticket

Eli Lilly and Company 20132016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders
Monday, May 6, 20132, 2016
11:00 a.m. EDT
Lilly Center Auditorium
Lilly Corporate Center
Indianapolis, Indiana 46285
The top portion of this page will be required for admission to the meeting.
Please write your name and address in the space provided below and present this ticket when you enter the Lilly Center.
Doors open at 10:15 a.m.

Name
 
Address
 
City, State, and Zip Code


Parking Pass
Directions and Parking
From I-70 take Exit 79B; follow signs to McCarty Street. Turn right (east) on McCarty Street; go straight into Lilly Corporate Center. You will be directed to parking. Be sure to take the admission ticket (the top portion of this page) with you to the meeting and leave this parking pass on your dashboard.

55



Take the top portion of this page with you to the meeting.

P65



 

 
 
 
 
  
Detach here
       
Eli Lilly and Company
Annual Meeting of Shareholders
May 6, 20132, 2016
 
Please place this identifier on the dashboard of your car as you enter Lilly Corporate Center so it can be clearly seen by security and parking personnel.



56P66



 
 
Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held May 6, 2013:2, 2016:
The Annual Report and Proxy Statement are available at http:https://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2012.pdf_Assets/PDF/lillyar2015.pdf.
 
- - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M52722-P31749M99796-P71734
 
The undersigned hereby appoints Messrs. M.J.M. J. Harrington, J.C.J. C. Lechleiter, and D.W.D. W. Rice, and each of them, as proxies, each with full power to act without the others and with full power of substitution, to vote as indicated on the reverse side of this card all the shares of common stock of ELI LILLY AND COMPANY in this account held in the name of the undersigned at the close of business on March 1, 2013,February 26, 2016, at the annual meeting of shareholders to be held on May 6, 2013,2, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, and at any adjournment thereof, with all the powers the undersigned would have if personally present.
If this card is properly executed and returned, the shares represented thereby will be voted. If a choice is specified by the shareholder, the shares will be voted accordingly. If not otherwise specified, the shares represented by this card will be voted with the recommendations of the board of directors and in the discretion of the proxy holders upon such other matters as may properly come before the meeting.
This proxy is solicited on behalf of the board of directors.
 
 
PLEASE MARK YOUR VOTES AND SIGN ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CARD.

57



ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
C/O IVS, P.O. BOX 17149
WILMINGTON, DE 19885-9801
VOTE BY INTERNET – www.proxyvote.com
Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Sunday, May 5, 2013.1, 2016. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the website and follow the instructions.
 
VOTE BY PHONE – (1-800-690-6903)
Transmit your voting instructions by telephone until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Sunday, May 5, 2013.1, 2016. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and follow the instructions.
 
VOTE BY MAIL
Mark, sign, and date your proxy card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return to Eli Lilly and Company, c/o IVS Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 17149, Wilmington, DE 19885-9801.
 
Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held May 6, 2013:2, 2016: The annual report and proxy statement are available at http:https://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2012.pdf._Assets/PDF/lillyar2015.pdf.
 
THANK YOU FOR VOTING

TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS:M52721-P31749M99795-P71734KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
THIS CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED.DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
The board of directors recommends you vote FOR items 1-4:1-3:
(1)1.Election of directors, each for a three-year term.ForAgainstAbstain    
          
 1a)1a. R. Alvarez qqq    
          
 1b) W. Bischoffqqq
1c)1b. R. D. Hoover qqq    
          
 1d) F. G. Prendergast1c. J. R. Luciano qqq



          
 1e)1d. F. G. Prendergastqqq
1e. K. P. Seifert qqq
ForAgainstAbstain
          
(2)2.Approve advisory vote on compensation paid to the company’s named executive officers.qqq
3.Ratification of the appointment by the audit committee of the board of directors of Ernst & Young LLP as principal independent auditor for 2013.qqq
(3)Approve, by non-binding vote, compensation paid to the company’s named executive officers.qqq
(4)Reapprove material terms of the performance goals for the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan.2016.qqq
The board of directors recommends you vote AGAINST shareholder proposal 4:
4.
Consideration of a shareholder proposal seeking a report regarding how we select the countries in which we operate or invest.

qqq

Please sign exactly as name appears hereon. One joint owner may sign on behalf of the others. When signing in a representative capacity, please clearly state your capacity. 
     
     
    Signature (PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX)Date Signature (Joint Owners)Date


58



 
 
Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held May 6, 2013:2, 2016:
The Annual Report and Proxy Statement are available at http:https://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2012.pdf
_Assets/PDF/lillyar2015.pdf.
  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - -  -  - - 
 
ESOP   M52724-P31749M99798-P71734
The Lilly Employee 401(k) Plan
Confidential Voting Instructions
To Northern Trust, Trustee
By signing on the reverse side or by voting by phone or Internet, you direct the Trustee to vote (in person or in proxy) as indicated on the reverse side of this card, the number of shares of Eli Lilly and Company Common Stock credited to this account under The Lilly Employee 401(k) Plan or an affiliated plan at the close of business on March 1, 2013,February 26, 2016, at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 6, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. EDT, and at any adjournment thereof.
If this card is properly executed and returned, the shares represented thereby will be voted. If a choice is specified by the shareholder, the shares will be voted accordingly. If not otherwise specified, the shares represented by this card will be voted with the recommendations of the board of directors and in the discretion of the proxy holders upon such other matters as may properly come before the meeting.
Also, unless you decline by checking the box below, you direct the Trustee to apply this voting instruction pro rata (along with all other participants who provide voting instructions and do not decline as provided below) to all shares of Common Stock held in the plans for which the Trustee receives no voting instructions (the “undirected shares”), except that shares formerly held in The Lilly Employee Stock Ownership Plan (PAYSOP) may only be voted upon the express instruction of the participants to whose accounts the shares are credited. For more information on the voting of the undirected shares, see the Proxy Statement.
YesNo
Question 1: Check “no” only if you decline to have your vote applied pro rata to the undirected shares.
qq
These confidential voting instructions will be seen only by authorized representatives of the Trustee.
PLEASE MARK YOUR VOTES AND SIGN ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CARD.

59



NORTHERN TRUST, TRUSTEE
C/O IVS, P.O. BOX 17149
WILMINGTON, DE 19885-9801
VOTE BY INTERNET – www.proxyvote.com
Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, April 30, 2013. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the website and follow the instructions.
VOTE BY PHONE – (1-800-690-6903)
Transmit your voting instructions by telephone until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, April 30, 2013. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and follow the instructions.
VOTE BY MAIL
Mark, sign, and date this card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return to IVS Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 17149, Wilmington, DE 19885-9801. Card must be received by April 30, 2013.
Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held May 6, 2013: The annual report and proxy statement are available at http://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2012.pdf.

THANK YOU FOR VOTING
TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS:M52723-P31749KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - 
ESOP
THIS CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED.DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
The board of directors recommends you vote FOR items 1-4:
(1)Election of directors, each for a three-year term.ForAgainstAbstain
1a) R. Alvarezqqq
1b) W. Bischoffqqq
1c) R. D. Hooverqqq
1d) F. G. Prendergastqqq
1e) K. P. SeifertqqqForAgainstAbstain
(2)Ratification of the appointment by the audit committee of the board of directors of Ernst & Young LLP as principal independent auditor for 2013.qqq
(3)Approve, by non-binding vote, compensation paid to the company’s named executive officers.qqq
(4)Reapprove material terms of the performance goals for the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan.qqq

Please sign exactly as name appears hereon. One joint owner may sign on behalf of the others. When signing in a representative capacity, please clearly state your capacity.
    Signature (PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX)DateSignature (Joint Owners)Date


60




Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held May 6, 2013:
The Annual Report and Proxy Statement are available at http://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2012.pdf
- - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - 
PAYSOP   M52726-P31749        
The Lilly Employee 401(k) Plan
Confidential Voting Instructions
To Northern Trust, Trustee
By signing on the reverse side or by voting by phone or Internet, you direct the Trustee to vote (in person or in proxy) as indicated on the reverse side of this card, the number of shares of Eli Lilly and Company Common Stock credited to this account under The Lilly Employee 401(k) Plan or an affiliated plan at the close of business on March 1, 2013, at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 6, 20132, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. EDT, and at any adjournment thereof.
If this card is properly executed and returned, the shares represented thereby will be voted. If a choice is specified by the shareholder, the shares will be voted accordingly. If not otherwise specified, the shares represented by this card will be voted with the recommendations of the board of directors and in the discretion of the proxy holders upon such other matters as may properly come before the meeting.
Also, unless you decline by checking the box below, you direct the Trustee to apply this voting instruction pro rata (along with all other participants who provide voting instructions and do not decline as provided below) to all shares of Common Stock held in the plans for which the Trustee receives no voting instructions (the “undirected shares”), except that shares formerly held in The Lilly Employee Stock Ownership Plan (PAYSOP) may only be voted upon the express instruction of the participants to whose accounts the shares are credited. For more information on the voting of the undirected shares, see the Proxy Statement.
 
 YesNo
Question 1: Check “no” only if you decline to have your vote applied pro rata to the undirected shares.
qq
These confidential voting instructions will be seen only by authorized representatives of the Trustee.
 

PLEASE MARK YOUR VOTES AND SIGN ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CARD.

61



NORTHERN TRUST, TRUSTEE
C/O IVS, P.O. BOX 17149
WILMINGTON, DE 19885-9801
VOTE BY INTERNET – www.proxyvote.com
Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, April 30, 2013.26, 2016. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the website and follow the instructions.
 
VOTE BY PHONE – (1-800-690-6903)
Transmit your voting instructions by telephone until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, April 30, 2013.26, 2016. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and follow the instructions.
 
VOTE BY MAIL
Mark, sign, and date this card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return to IVS Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 17149, Wilmington, DE 19885-9801. Card must be received by April 30, 2013.26, 2016.
 
Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held May 6, 2013:2, 2016: The annual report and proxy statement are available at http:https://www.lilly.com/pdf/lillyar2012.pdf.

_Assets/PDF/lillyar2015.pdf.

THANK YOU FOR VOTING
 
TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS:M52725-P31749M99797-P71734KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - -
    PAYSOP
ESOP
THIS CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED.DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
The board of directors recommends you vote FOR items 1-4:1-3:
(1)1.Election of directors, each for a three-year term.ForAgainstAbstain    
          
 1a)1a. R. Alvarez qqq    
          
 1b) W. Bischoffqqq
1c)1b. R. D. Hoover qqq    
          
 1d)1c. J. R. Lucianoqqq
1d. F. G. Prendergast qqq    
          
 1e)1e. K. P. Seifert qqq ForAgainstAbstain
          
(2)2.Approve advisory vote on compensation paid to the company’s named executive officers.qqq
3.Ratification of the appointment by the audit committee of the board of directors of Ernst & Young LLP as principal independent auditor for 2013.2016.qqq
The board of directors recommends you vote AGAINST shareholder proposal 4:
(3)Approve, by non-binding vote, compensation paid to the company’s named executive officers.qqq
(4)Reapprove material terms
4.
Consideration of a shareholder proposal seeking a report regarding how we select the performance goals for the 2002 Lilly Stock Plan.countries in which we operate or invest.

qqq

Please sign exactly as name appears hereon. One joint owner may sign on behalf of the others. When signing in a representative capacity, please clearly state your capacity. 
     
     
    Signature (PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX)Date Signature (Joint Owners)Date



62



Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held May 2, 2016:
The Annual Report and Proxy Statement are available at https://www.lilly.com/_Assets/PDF/lillyar2015.pdf.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - -  -  - - 
PAYSOP   M99800-P71734
Lilly Employee 401(k) Plan
Confidential Voting Instructions
To Northern Trust, Trustee
By signing on the reverse side or by voting by phone or Internet, you direct the Trustee to vote (in person or in proxy) as indicated on the reverse side of this card, the number of shares of Eli Lilly and Company Common Stock credited to this account under The Lilly Employee 401(k) Plan or an affiliated plan at the close of business on February 26, 2016, at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 2, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. EDT, and at any adjournment thereof.
If this card is properly executed and returned, the shares represented thereby will be voted. If a choice is specified by the shareholder, the shares will be voted accordingly. If not otherwise specified, the shares represented by this card will be voted with the recommendations of the board of directors and in the discretion of the proxy holders upon such other matters as may properly come before the meeting.
Also, unless you decline by checking the box below, you direct the Trustee to apply this voting instruction pro rata (along with all other participants who provide voting instructions and do not decline as provided below) to all shares of Common Stock held in the plans for which the Trustee receives no voting instructions (the “undirected shares”), except that shares formerly held in The Lilly Employee Stock Ownership Plan (PAYSOP) may only be voted upon the express instruction of the participants to whose accounts the shares are credited. For more information on the voting of the undirected shares, see the Proxy Statement.
YesNo
Question 1: Check “no” only if you decline to have your vote applied pro rata to the undirected shares.
qq
These confidential voting instructions will be seen only by authorized representatives of the Trustee.
PLEASE MARK YOUR VOTES AND SIGN ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CARD.




NORTHERN TRUST, TRUSTEE
C/O IVS, P.O. BOX 17149
WILMINGTON, DE 19885-9801
VOTE BY INTERNET – www.proxyvote.com
Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, April 26, 2016. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the website and follow the instructions.
VOTE BY PHONE – (1-800-690-6903)
Transmit your voting instructions by telephone until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, April 26, 2016. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and follow the instructions.
VOTE BY MAIL
Mark, sign, and date this card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return to IVS Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 17149, Wilmington, DE 19885-9801. Card must be received by April 26, 2016.
Important notice regarding the availability of proxy material for the shareholder meeting to be held May 2, 2016: The annual report and proxy statement are available at https://www.lilly.com/_Assets/PDF/lillyar2015.pdf.

THANK YOU FOR VOTING
TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS:M99799-P71734KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - 
    PAYSOPTHIS CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED.DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
The board of directors recommends you vote FOR items 1-3:
1.Election of directors, each for a three-year term.ForAgainstAbstain
1a. R. Alvarezqqq
1b. R. D. Hooverqqq
1c. J. R. Lucianoqqq
1d. F. G. Prendergastqqq
1e. K. P. SeifertqqqForAgainstAbstain
2.Approve advisory vote on compensation paid to the company’s named executive officers.qqq
3.Ratification of the appointment by the audit committee of the board of directors of Ernst & Young LLP as principal independent auditor for 2016.qqq
The board of directors recommends you vote AGAINST shareholder proposal 4:
4.
Consideration of a shareholder proposal seeking a report regarding how we select the countries in which we operate or invest.

qqq

Please sign exactly as name appears hereon. One joint owner may sign on behalf of the others. When signing in a representative capacity, please clearly state your capacity.
    Signature (PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX)DateSignature (Joint Owners)Date