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:

A. O. Smith Corporation

(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):

11270 West Park Place

Milwaukee, WI 53224

March 15, 20137, 2014

DEAR FELLOW A. O. SMITH STOCKHOLDER:

I am pleased to invite you to our Annual Meeting of Stockholders of A. O. Smith Corporation, to be held at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20062,Newport News Marriott at City Center, 740 Town Center Drive, Newport News, Virginia, on Monday, April 15, 2013,7, 2014, at 5:15 P.M., Eastern Daylight Time. At this meeting, you will be asked to vote to elect directors, approve the compensation of our named executive officers by advisory vote, ratify the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm, approve an amendment to our Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of Common Stock, approve an amendment to our Certificate of Incorporation to decrease the number of authorized shares of Class A Common Stock, and consider any other business that may properly come before the meeting.

The attached Notice of 20132014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement describe the business we will conduct at the Annual Meeting.

Whether or not you will be able to attend the Annual Meeting in person, it is important that you vote your shares. You may vote your shares by signing and dating the enclosed Proxy Card and returning it in the postage-paid envelope provided. For your convenience, you may also vote your shares via the internet or by a toll-free telephone number by following the instructions provided on the Proxy Card. If you own shares through a broker, bank or other agent, please vote your shares by providing your broker, bank or agent with your voting instructions.

You are cordially invited to attend the Annual Meeting of Stockholders in person. Even if you choose to attend in person, you are encouraged to review the proxy materials and vote your shares in advance of the meeting. Your vote is important, and we appreciate your taking the time to vote promptly.

Sincerely,

Paul W. JonesAjita G. Rajendra

President and Chief Executive ChairmanOfficer

March 15, 20137, 2014

NOTICE OF 20132014 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

The 20132014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of A. O. Smith Corporation will be held at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C.,Newport News Marriott at City Center, 740 Town Center Drive, Newport News, Virginia on Monday, April 15, 2013,7, 2014, at 5:15 P.M., Eastern Daylight Time, for the following purposes:

Stockholders of record as of February 18, 2013,17, 2014, are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. The list of stockholders entitled to vote at the meeting will be available at our offices at 11270 West Park Place, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as of March 22, 2013,28, 2014, for examination by stockholders for purposes related to the meeting.

Whether or not you plan to attend the meeting, we encourage you to vote your shares. You may vote your shares overby signing and dating the Internet orenclosed Proxy Card and returning it in the postage-paid envelope provided. For your convenience, you may also vote your shares via the internet or by a toll-free telephone number as we describe inby following the accompanying materials. As an alternative, you may sign, date and mailinstructions provided on the Proxy Card in the envelope provided. No postage is necessary if mailed in the United States.Card. Voting over the Internet, via the toll-free telephone number or mailing a Proxy Card will not limit your right to vote in person or to attend the Annual Meeting.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

James F. Stern

Executive Vice President,

General Counsel and Secretary

A. O. Smith Corporation

11270 West Park Place

Milwaukee, WI 53224

PROXY STATEMENT FOR 20132014 ANNUAL MEETING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROXY STATEMENT

20132014 ANNUAL MEETING

GENERAL INFORMATION

This Proxy Statement is furnished to stockholders of A. O. Smith Corporation in connection with the solicitation by its Board of Directors of proxies for use at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of our company to be held on April 15, 2013,7, 2014, at 5:15 P.M., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20062.Newport News Marriott at City Center, 740 Town Center Drive, Newport News, Virginia.

Pursuant to the rules of the Security and Exchange Commission, or “SEC”, we are mailing this Proxy Statement, the enclosed Proxy Card and our 20122013 Annual Report on or about March 15, 2013,7, 2014, to each stockholder at the holder’s address of record.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Stockholder Meeting to be held on April 15, 2013:7, 2014: The Notice of 20132014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, this Proxy Statement and our 20122013 Annual reportReport are also available at www.ematerials.com/aos.www.proxydocs.com/aos.

Record Date

The record date for stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the meeting is the close of business on February 18, 201317, 2014 (the “Record Date”). As of the Record Date, we had issued 6,654,33213,286,658 shares of Class A Common Stock, par value $5 per share, 6,621,73713,221,468 shares of which were outstanding and entitled to one (1) vote each for Class A Common Stock directors and other matters. As of the Record Date, we had issued 41,022,57982,067,138 shares of Common Stock, par value $1 per share, 39,688,60678,170,715 shares of which were outstanding and entitled to one (1) vote each for Common Stock directors and one-tenth (1/10^th) vote each for other matters.

Class Voting for Directors

Under our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as long as the number of outstanding shares of our Common Stock is at least 10% of the aggregate number of outstanding shares of our Class A Common Stock and Common Stock, the holders of the Class A Common Stock and holders of the Common Stock vote as separate classes in the election of directors. The holders of our Common Stock are entitled to elect, as a class, 33 1/3% of our entire Board of Directors, rounded up to the next whole director, and the holders of our Class A Common Stock are entitled to elect the remainder of the Board. The holders of our Class A Common Stock have the right to elect the remainder of the directors of the Board pursuant to the preceding sentence as long as the number of outstanding shares of our Class A Common Stock is 12.5% or more of the aggregate number of outstanding shares of our Class A Common Stock and Common Stock. Stockholders are entitled to one (1) vote per share in the election of directors for their class of stock.

Quorum

A majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote must be represented in person or by proxy at the meeting in order to constitute a quorum for purposes of holding the Annual Meeting. The voting by stockholders at the meeting is conducted by the inspectors of election. Abstentions and broker non-votes, if any, are counted as present in determining whether the quorum requirement is met.

Required Vote

Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast, by proxy (whether by Internet, telephone or mail) or in person, with the holders voting as separate classes. This means that the nominees who receive the greatest number of votes cast are elected as directors. Consequently, any shares that are not voted, whether by abstention, broker non-votes or otherwise, will have no effect on the election of directors.

The proposal to approve an amendment to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of Common Stock will be approved if a majority of the outstanding shares of Common Stock voting as a separate class and a majority of the outstanding shares of Class A Common Stock and Common Stock, voting together as a single class with the Class A Common Stock entitled to one (1) vote per share and the Common Stock entitled to one-tenth (1/10th) vote per share, are voted in favor of the amendment. The proposal to approve an amendment to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to decrease the number of authorized shares of Class A Common Stock will be approved if a majority of the outstanding shares of Class A Common Stock voting as a separate class and a majority of the outstanding shares of Class A Common Stock and Common Stock, voting together as a single class with the Class A Common Stock entitled to one (1) vote per share and the Common Stock entitled to one-tenth (1/10th) vote per share, are voted in favor of the amendment. Both abstentions and broker non-votes will have the same effect as votes against approval of each of these proposals.

In addition, (i) the effectiveness of the proposal to approve an amendment to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of Common Stock is conditioned upon stockholder approval of the proposal to approve an amendment to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to decrease the number of authorized shares of Class A Common Stock and (ii) the effectiveness of the proposal to approve an amendment to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to decrease the number of authorized shares of Class A Common Stock is conditioned upon stockholder approval of the proposal to approve an amendment to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of Common Stock. As a result, if stockholders do not approve one of these proposals, then the other proposal will fail. Accordingly, a vote against one of these proposals may have the same effect as a vote against the other proposal.

For all other matters considered at the meeting, both classes of stock vote together as a single class, with the Class A Common Stock entitled to one (1) vote per share and the Common Stock entitled to one-tenth (1/10^th)10th) vote per share. The proposal to approve the compensation of our named executive officers by advisory vote and the proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm will be approved if a majority of the votes present or represented at the meeting are cast in favor of the matter. Abstentions will have the same effect as a vote “against” but, because shares held by brokers will not be considered entitled to vote on matters as to which the beneficial owners withhold authority, a broker non-vote will have no effect on the vote.

Cost of Soliciting Proxies

The cost of soliciting proxies, including preparing, assembling and mailing thisthe Proxy Statement, form of proxy and other soliciting materials, as well as the cost of forwarding such material to the beneficial owners of stock, will be paid by us, except for some costs associated with individual stockholders’ use of the Internet or telephone. In addition to solicitation by mail, directors, officers, regular employees and others may also, but without compensation other than their regular compensation, solicit proxies personally or by telephone or other means of electronic communication. We may reimburse brokers and others holding stock in their names or in the names of nominees for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in sending proxy materials to principals and beneficial owners.

How to Vote

Via the Internet – Stockholders can simplify their voting by voting their shares via the Internet as instructed on the enclosed Proxy Card or the voting instruction form sent to them by their broker, bank or other agent. The Internet procedures are designed to authenticate a stockholder’s identity to allow stockholders to vote their shares and confirm that their instructions have been properly recorded.

Internet voting for stockholders of record is available 24 hours a day and will close at 12:00 p.m. (CDT) on April 12, 2013.4, 2014.

By Telephone – Stockholders can vote their shares by a toll-free number on the enclosed Proxy Card or in the voting instruction form sent to them by their broker, bank or other agent. Telephone voting for stockholders of record is available 24 hours a day and will close at 12:00 p.m. (CDT) on April 12, 2013.4, 2014.

By Mail – Stockholders of record who have received a paper Proxy Card may vote by completing, signing and dating their Proxy Card and mailing it in the pre-addressed envelope. Proxy Cards submitted by mail must be received by the time of the Annual MeetingApril 4, 2014 for your shares to be voted. Stockholders who hold shares beneficially in street name and received a voting instruction form from their broker, bank or other agent, may vote by completing, signing and dating the instruction form provided by the broker, bank or other agent and mailing it in the pre-addressed envelope provided.

If you vote via the Internet, by telephone or by mailing a Proxy Card, we will vote your shares as you direct. For the election of directors, you can specify whether your shares should be voted for all or some of the nominees for director listed or you may withhold your vote from all or some of the nominees for director. With respect to the proposal to approve the compensation of our named executive officers by advisory vote, and the proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm, the proposal to amend our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of Common Stock and the proposal to amend our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to decrease the number of authorized shares of Class A Common Stock, you may vote “for” or “against” any proposal or you may “abstain” from voting on any proposal.

If you submit a proxy via the Internet, by telephone or by mailing a Proxy Card without indicating your instructions, we will vote your shares consistent with the recommendations of our Board of Directors as stated in this Proxy Statement specifically in favor of our nominees for directors, in favor of approving the compensation of our named executive officers and, in favor of the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm, in favor of the amendment to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of Common Stock and in favor of the amendment to our Amended and Restated Certificate to decrease the number of authorized shares of Class A Common Stock.firm. If any other matters are properly presented at the Annual Meeting for consideration, then our officers named on your proxy will have discretion to vote for you on those matters. As of the date of the Notice of 20132014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, we knew of no other matters to be presented at the Annual Meeting.

At the Annual Meeting – Shares held in your name as the stockholder of record may be voted by you in person at the Annual Meeting. Shares held beneficially in street name may be voted by you in person at the Annual Meeting only if you obtain a legal proxy from the broker bank or other agent that holds your shares giving you the right to vote the shares and bring such proxy to the Annual Meeting.

Revocation of Proxies

You may revoke your proxy at any time before the Annual Meeting by delivering written notice of revocation or a duly executed proxy bearing a later date to the Corporate Secretary of our company or by attending the meeting and voting in person.

Stockholders Sharing the Same Address

SEC rules permit us to deliver only one copy of a single set of proxy materials to multiple stockholders sharing the same address. Upon written or oral request, we will promptly deliver a separate copy of our Annual Report and/or this Proxy Statement to any stockholder at a shared address to which a single copy of each document was delivered. Stockholders may notify our company of their requests by calling or writing Patricia K. Ackerman, Vice President, Investor Relations and Treasurer, A. O. Smith Corporation, P.O. Box 245008, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53224-9508; (414) 359-4130.

PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS

The following table shows persons who may be deemed to be beneficial owners (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) of more than 5% of any class of our stock. Unless otherwise noted, the table reflects beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2012.2013, and reflects the 2-for-1 stock split implemented on May 15, 2013.

Information on beneficial ownership is based upon Schedules 13D or 13G filed with the SEC and any additional information that any beneficial owners may have provided to us.

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Ten directors are to be elected to serve until the next succeeding Annual Meeting of Stockholders and thereafter until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified. Owners of Common Stock are entitled to elect four directors, and owners of Class A Common Stock are entitled to elect the six remaining directors.

It is intended that proxies we are soliciting will be voted for the election of the nominees named below. Proxies will not be voted for a greater number of persons than the ten nominees named below. All nominees have consented to being named in this Proxy Statement and to serve if elected. If any nominee for election as a director shall become unavailable to serve as a director, then proxies will be voted for such substitute nominee as the Board of Directors may nominate.

Set forth below is information regarding the business experience of each nominee for director that has been furnished to us by the respective nominees for director. Each nominee has been principally engaged in the employment indicated for the last five years unless otherwise stated. Also set forth below for each nominee for director is a discussion of the experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that led to the conclusion that the nominee should serve as a director.

NOMINEES – CLASS A COMMON STOCK

RONALD D. BROWN – Chief Operating Officer, The Armor Group, Inc.; Managing Director, Taft Business Consulting, LLC.

Mr. Brown, 59,60, has been a director of our company since 2001. He is the Chairperson of the Personnel and Compensation Committee and a member of the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board. In February, 2013, Mr. Brown joined the Armor Group, Inc. in 2013 as Chief Operating Officer.chief operating officer. The Armor Group, Inc. is a certified woman-owned corporation which manufactures equipment and products, and provides related services to a variety of industrial markets, including beverage and food service, medical, power generation, automobile, and military. In addition, since 2009, Mr. Brown has been Managing Directormanaging director of Taft Business Consulting, LLC, a consulting group affiliated with the law firm of Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, which provides advisory services on a range of business issues. From 2010 to 2013, Mr. Brown served as Chief Financial Officerchief financial officer of Makino, Inc., a privately heldprivately-held global metalworking technologies company. Prior to that, Mr. Brown was chairman and chief executive officer of Milacron Inc. from 2001 to 2008, and president and chief operating officer of Milacron Inc. from 1999 through 2001. He joined Milacron Inc. in 1980. Milacron is a supplier of plastic processing and metalworking fluid technologies; the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Mr. Brown also serves on the Board of Zep Inc., where he is Chairmanchairman of the Compensation Committee and a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Mr. Brown’s experience as chief executive officer and chairman of a publicly heldpublicly-held company provides valuable insight for us as to the issues and opportunities facing our company. Further, he has international and manufacturing experience. Like our company, Milacron faced the challenge of competing against foreign manufacturers and operated international manufacturing plants, particularly in Asia. In addition, Mr. Brown has experience as a chief financial officer and a corporate attorney. His legal background makes him well suitedwell-suited to address legal and governance requirements of the SEC and New York Stock Exchange, both as Chairperson of the Personnel and Compensation Committee and as a member of our Nominating and Governance Committee.

PAUL W. JONES – Executive Chairman of the Board.

Mr. Jones, 64,65, has been a director of our company since 2004. He is a member of the Investment Policy Committee of the Board. He was electedbecame executive chairman of the board effective January 1,in 2013. HeMr. Jones has announced he plans to retire from his position as executive chairman of the board in April 2014 following the Annual Meeting of Stockholders; he will continue to serve as a director. Mr. Jones served as chairman of the board and chief executive officer from 2011 to 2012,2012; chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer from 2006 to 2011,2011; and

president and chief operating officer from 2004 to 2005. Prior to joining A. O. Smith, he was chairman and chief executive officer of U.S. Can Company, Inc. from 1998 to 2002. He previously was president and chief executive officer of Greenfield Industries, Inc. from 1993 to 1998 and president

from 1989 to 1992. Mr. Jones has been a director of Federal Signal Corporation since 1998, where he chairs the Nominating and Governance Committee and is a member of the Executive Committee and the Compensation and Benefits Committee, and a director of Integrys Energy Group, Inc. since 2011, where he chairs the Financial Committee and is a member of the Compensation and Financial Committees.Audit Committee. He also was a director of Bucyrus International, Inc. from 2006 until its acquisition by Caterpillar, Inc. in 2011, and chaired its Compensation Committee.

Mr. Jones has extensive leadership experience as chief executive officer and chairman, both at our company and previously at U.S. Can and Greenfield Industries. He brings this diverse background as the leader of a world-class manufacturing company. He is experienced in managing the operational activities of a large business and providing overall direction for a complex corporation like ours. Further, Mr. Jones is and has been a director of several other publicly tradedpublicly-traded companies, and shares his insights as to best practices from those experiences.

AJITA G. RAJENDRA – President and Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. Rajendra, 61,62, has been a director of our company since 2011. He is a member of the Investment Policy Committee of the Board. Mr. Rajendra wasbecame president and chief executive officer in 2013. He has been elected to become chairman, president and chief executive officer, effective January 1, 2013. He wasApril 2014 following the Annual Meeting of Stockholders, when Paul Jones’ announced retirement as executive chairman of the board becomes effective. Mr. Rajendra previously served as president and chief operating officer of the company from 2011 to 2012. Mr. Rajendra joined the Companycompany as President of A. O. Smith Water Products Company in 2005, and was named Executive Vice Presidentexecutive vice president of the Companycompany in 2006. Prior to joining the company, Mr. Rajendra was Senior Vice Presidentsenior vice president at Kennametal, Inc., a manufacturer of cutting tools, from 1998 to 2004.

Mr. Rajendra also serves on the board of Donaldson Company, Inc., where he is a member of the Audit Committee and Human Resources Committee. Further, Mr. Rajendra was a director of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. from 2007 until its acquisition by Eiger Holdco, LLC in 2008.

Mr. Rajendra’s extensive manufacturing and international experience, and service to our Companycompany as our Presidentpresident and Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer and in various other senior executive positions, brings to the Board knowledge and insight as to our Company��scompany’s global operations and a thorough understanding of our products and markets. Further, Mr. Rajendra has other experience as a director of a publicly tradedpublicly-traded company.

MATHIAS F. SANDOVAL – Former Chief Executive Officer & President, Phelps Dodge International Corporation and Former Executive Vice President, General Cable Corporation.

Mr. Sandoval, 52,53, has been a director of the Companyour company since, October, 2010. He is a member of the Personnel and Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Governance Committee. Mr. Sandoval was chief executive officer and president of Phelps Dodge International Corporation from 2001 to 2012 and executive vice president of its parent company, General Cable Corporation, where he was chief executive officer and president of General Cable’s Rest of World Segment,segment, from 2007 to 2012. Mr. SandovalHe began his 28-year career in the wire and cable industry as a process engineer in Phelps Dodge’s Costa Rican operation and held numerous executive management positions at Phelps Dodge, including general manager of the Honduras-based business, president of the Venezuelan operations, vice president of the Global Aluminum Business Segment, and vice president of the Global Energy Segment. General Cable Corporation is a leader in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for the energy, industrial, specialty and communications markets. Mr. Sandoval resigned from those positions in November 2012 after General Cable Corporation disclosed certain inventory-related accounting errors involving two facilities in the Resterrors. In subsequent restatements of World segment located in Brazil. General Cable restated its financial statements for 2009-2012, and disclosed its view that the situation involved in-partGeneral Cable identified internal control deficiencies forat several facilities, including several that were within the Rest of World segment. In addition, since July 2013 Mr. Sandoval has been advising the executive group of Grupo Terra, a privately-held diversified investment company with significant operations in Central and South America in the energy, oil, infrastructure, retail and real estate development sectors.

Mr. Sandoval brings to our Board the insights of an operating president with a publicly tradedpublicly-traded manufacturing company larger than our own. He also has extensive operating and manufacturing experience, as well as broad international experience, particularly in regions where our company has focused its growth plans. Further, he has prior board experience as a member of numerous Phelps Dodge boards, including two international publicly tradedpublicly-traded companies. As an added benefit, he brings diversity to our board.Board. Finally, we considered hisMr. Sandoval’s departure from Phelps Dodge International Corporation and General Cable Corporation (including the related circumstances, disclosures and restatements) and concluded that it does not bear on his ability to contribute as a member of our Board.

BRUCE M. SMITH – Chairman of the Board of Managers and Former Chief Executive Officer, Smith Investment Company LLC; Former Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, Smith Investment Company.

Mr. Smith, 64,65, has been a director of our company since 1995. He is the Chairperson of the Investment Policy Committee and a member of the Personnel and Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board. He was elected president of Smith Investment Company Inc. (“SICO”) in 1993, and served as chairman and chief executive officer of SICO from 1999 until its merger with our company in 2009. Shares of our Class A Common Stock and Common Stock were SICO’s principal asset and represented a controlling position in our company until the merger. Mr. Smith was a director of SICO from 1983 to 1988 and from 1991 to 2009. From 2009 until his retirement in 2012, Mr. Smith also was chief executive officer of Smith Investment Company LLC, an entity that holds all of the assets and liabilities of SICO (other than our Class A Common Stock and Common Stock owned by SICO until the merger). Since 2009, Mr. Smith has been Chairmanchairman of the Boardboard of Managersmanagers of Smith Investment Company LLC. He was also chief executive officer of Berlin Industries LLC, which was engaged in multicolor printing and related services, from 1996 until its sale in 2011. Further, Mr. Smith is one of three trustees of the Smith Family Voting Trust, which holds a controlling position in the stock of our company. Mr. Smith is a first cousin of Mark D. Smith, also a director of our company. In 2013, Mr. Smith’s daughter, Alexandra Smith, joined our company in an entry-level human resources position. Roger S. Smith, brother of director Bruce M. Smith, is a long-standing employee of our company employed in a non-executive capacity as Director-Community Affairs.director-community affairs.

Mr. Bruce Smith has executive level experience in handling the operational activities of SICO, with its diverse businesses. Further, he has practical experience gained through his participation on the board of SICO prior to its merger into our company. Based on his employment with our company earlier in his career and his role as a director for more than 1719 years, Mr. Smith is knowledgeable of company history and understands our long termlong-term strategic and tactical plans. Mr. Smith is a member of the Smith family, which holds a controlling interest in the stock of our company.

MARK D. SMITH – Business Manager, Strattec Security Corporation.

Mr. Smith, 51,52, has been a director of our company since 2001. He is a member of the Audit Committee of the Board. He has served as a product business manager for Strattec Security Corporation since 1997. Strattec Security Corporation designs, develops, manufactures and markets mechanical locks and keys, electronically enhanced locks and keys, steering column and instrument panel ignition lock housings, latches, and related access control products for major automotive manufacturers. Mr. Smith is a first cousin of Bruce M. Smith, also a director of our company.

Mr. Mark Smith is experienced in managing the operations of a manufacturing business, both at Strattec and previously with our company. Further, an important aspect of his position at Strattec is managing key customer relationships, and he brings this orientation to his service on our Board. Mr. Smith is also a member of the Smith family, which holds a controlling interest in the stock of our company.

NOMINEES – COMMON STOCK

GLOSTER B. CURRENT, JR. – Retired Vice President Corporate Affairs and Assistant to the Chief Executive Officer, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company.

Mr. Current, 67,68, has been a director of our company since 2007. He is a member of the Audit Committee of the Board. Mr. Current retired from Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company (“NML”) in 2009 as vice president corporate affairs and assistant to the chief executive officer. He previously served as vice president of policy owner services at NML from 2006 to 2007 and as vice president, corporate planning when he joined the company in 2003. NML is the nation’s largest direct provider of individual life insurance. Prior to joining NML, he was vice president and chief marketing officer of Lincoln Financial Group from 1995 to 2003.

Mr. Current is proficient in risk management matters, having spent his career in the insurance and banking industries. With his risk management background, he serves on the Audit Committee of our Board. Further, based on his executive responsibilities at NML, Mr. Current brings a focus on customer service to our Board. Mr. Current also has strategic planning experience, both at NML and in his earlier career. In addition, Mr. Current has demonstrated leadership as a director of a non-profit organization, and as chairman of its Nominating and Governance Committee. As an added benefit, Mr. Current brings diversity to our Board.

WILLIAM P. GREUBEL –Retired Chief Executive Officer and Director, Wabash National Corporation.

Mr. Greubel, 61,62, has been a director of our company since 2006. He is a chairpersonthe Chairperson of the Nominating and Governance Committee and a member of the Personnel and Compensation Committee of the Board. Mr. Greubel was the chief executive officer of Wabash National from 2002 to 2007, and has held various director positions with Wabash National, including chairman and executive director, until his retirement as a director in 2009. Wabash National is one of the leading manufacturers of semi-truck trailers in North America, specializing in the design and production of dry freight vans, refrigerated vans, flatbed trailers, drop deck trailers, and intermodal equipment. Mr. Greubel previously was chief executive officer of Accuride Corporation from 1998 until 2002 and president from 1994 until 1998. Mr. Greubel served as a director of Wabash National from 2002 to 2009 and of privately heldprivately-held Utilimaster Corp. from 2002 to 2009.

Mr. Greubel is an experienced chief executive officer, having held this leadership position at Wabash National and Accuride Corporation. By virtue of this role, he has demonstrated his capability to effectively oversee the overall direction of a publicly tradedpublicly-traded company, and to manage a large manufacturing company like ours. Mr. Greubel’s experience and guidance in managing corporate restructuring and change in a large organization have been important to our acquisition integration activities.

IDELLE K. WOLF – Retired President, Barnes Distribution.

Ms. Wolf, 60,61, has been a director of our company since 2005. She is a member of the Audit Committee of the Board. Ms. Wolf was president of Barnes Distribution from 2006 to 2007 and vice president of Barnes Group Inc. from 2000 to 2007. She previously was president of Barnes Distribution North America from 2004 through 2005. She joined Barnes Group Inc. as vice president and as chief operating officer of Barnes Distribution in 2000. Barnes Distribution is a leading distributor of maintenance, repair, operating and production supplies with distribution centers in North America, Europe and Asia.

Ms. Wolf has extensive executive level financial and operating experience. She is a Certified Public Accountant with audit experience, and has a thorough knowledge and understanding of generally accepted accounting principles and auditing standards, and how they apply to budgeting and financial reporting systems. Accordingly, Ms. Wolf serves on our Audit Committee and is qualified as an audit committee financial expert under SEC regulations. Ms. Wolf also adds a distribution orientation to our Board, with a thorough understanding of distribution issues and opportunities on a worldwide basis. As an added benefit, Ms. Wolf brings diversity to our Board.

GENE C. WULF – Retired Director and Executive Vice President, Bemis Company, Inc.

Mr. Wulf, 62,63, has served as a director of our company since 2003. He is the Chairperson of the Audit Committee of the Board. Until his retirement in 2011, Mr. Wulf served as executive vice president of Bemis

Company, Inc., where he was responsible for integration of acquisitions, as well as global corporate strategy and information technology. He previously was senior vice president and chief financial officer of Bemis Company, Inc. from 2005 to 2010; was vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer of Bemis Company, Inc., from 2002 through 2005; and was vice president and controller from 1998 to 2002. He also served as a director of Bemis Company, Inc. from 2006 until his retirement in 2011. Bemis Company, Inc. is one of the largest flexible packaging companies in the Americas and a major manufacturer of pressure sensitive materials used in labels, decorating and signage.

Mr. Wulf is proficient in developing and managing a broad-based financial function and is familiar with financial analytics used to measure business performance in a manufacturing company. He has a thorough knowledge and understanding of generally accepted accounting principles and auditing standards, and how they should be applied to budgeting and financial reporting systems. Based on his experience as a chief financial officer of a public company, he shares his insights as to the best practices at companies like ours. With his strong financial background, Mr. Wulf serves on our Audit Committee and, further, meets the SEC definition of an audit committee financial expert. In addition, he has provided a practical orientation with respect to the business consolidation that our company has undertaken over the last several years.

GOVERNANCE OF OUR COMPANY

The Board of Directors

Our business is managed under the direction and oversight of the Board of Directors, who are elected by the stockholders. Directors meet their responsibilities by participating in meetings of the Board of Directors and Board Committees on which they sit, through communication with our Executive Chairman and our Chief Executive Officer and other officers and employees, by consulting with our independent registered public accounting firm and other third parties, by reviewing materials provided to them, and by visiting our offices and plants. During 2012,2013, the Board held six regularseven meetings, including two telephonic meetings. The Committees of the Board of Directors held a total of 3123 meetings, including eightnine meetings that were conducted telephonically. All directors attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board and Committees on which they served during 2012.2013. Although we have no formal policy on director attendance, all directors attended our 20122013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

The non-management directors of the Board met in executive session without management present sixfive times in 2012.2013. The lead director who presides at such meetings rotates on an annual basis among the chairpersons of the following Committees in the following order: Audit Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee, Audit Committee, Personnel and Compensation Committee and Investment Policy Committee. The lead director from April 20122013 to April 20132014 was Ronald D. Brown,Bruce M. Smith, the Chairperson of the Personnel and CompensationInvestment Policy Committee. For 2013,2014, the Nominating and Governance Committee designated Bruce M. Smith, ChairGene C. Wulf, the Chairperson of the Investment PolicyAudit Committee, as the lead director from April 20132014 to April 2014.2015. Any party wishing to communicate with the lead director may send correspondence to the Lead Director, c/o James F. Stern, Corporate Secretary, A. O. Smith Corporation, 11270 West Park Place, P.O. Box 245008, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53224-9508.

Director Independence and Financial Literacy. The Smith Family Voting Trust has the power to elect a majority of our Class A Directors, who make up a majority of the Board. As of December 31, 2012,2013, the Smith family directly or beneficially owned 94.91%95.06% of Class A Common Stock and therefore 94.91%95.06% of voting power with respect to the election of the Class A Directors. Since the Board is composed of six Class A Directors and four Common Stock Directors, the Smith Family Voting Trust effectively exercises control over voting power for the election of our directors, and therefore, we are a “controlled company” under the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) rules. As a controlled company, under NYSE rules, we may choose to not have a majority of independent directors or compensation or governance committees consisting solely of independent directors. Notwithstanding our status as a controlled company, the Board has not elected to exercise the “controlled company” exemption in any respect because, as described below, we have a Board in which a majority of our members consist of independent directors, and all members of the Audit Committee, Personnel and Compensation Committee and Nominating and Governance CommitteesCommittee are independent.

As described in the Corporate Governance Guidelines available on our website,www.aosmith.com, we apply the NYSE rules to determine director independence. The Nominating and Governance Committee annually evaluates the independence of each director and makes recommendations to the Board. As part of this process, the Committee evaluates any related party transactions disclosed by directors in the detailed Directors’ and Officers’ Questionnaires completed annually by each director. No transactions were above the reporting threshold for related party transactions under SEC rules. In making its recommendations, the Committee also applied the NYSE rules and

evaluated any other legal, accounting and family relationships between directors and us. In particular, theour company.

The Committee and the Board considered that Bruce Smith’s daughter, Alexandra Smith, joined the Company in 2013 in an entry-level position in the Human Resources Department, subject to the same terms and conditions as other salaried employees. The Committee and the Board also considered that director Bruce M. Smith’s brother, Roger S. Smith, has been a long-standing employee in a non-executive capacity. Roger Smith’s employment preceded Bruce M. Smith’s election to the Board by more than ten yearscapacity and he is subject to the same terms and conditions of employment as other salaried employees. TheFurther, the Committee and the Board also considered that Bruce M. Smith serves as Chairmanchairman of the Boardboard of Managersmanagers of Smith Investment Company, LLC and, until May 31, 2012, had been its chief executive officer. Smith Investment Company LLC purchased the company’s commercial paper at various times in 2012. These were arm’s length transactions handled directly by an independent third party offering such commercial paper to the public without the knowledge or approval of our company as to specific purchases, which were on terms identical to other purchasers. During 2012, Smith Investment Company LLC held an average of approximately $6.4 million in commercial paper per month until it sold all such commercial paper in December, 2012, and earned less than $86,000 in interest on such commercial paper during 2012. During 2012,2013, we provided office space, group insurance coverage and other miscellaneous services to Smith Investment Company LLC, for which we have been reimbursed $21,936. The Committee$11,056. We also paid $2,653 in dental expenses incurred by Bruce Smith and the Board also considered benefits Bruce M. Smith may have received as a resulthis wife in excess of the April 22, 2009 merger of SICO withCOBRA premium he paid for coverage under our company and noted that the automatic independence disqualification of Mr. Bruce M. Smith under NYSE rules related to that transaction no longer applied since it occurred over three years ago.self-insured plan following his retirement from SICO. The Committee and the Board concluded that each of the foregoing relationships was not a material relationship for governance purposes and did not affect Mr. Bruce M. Smith’s independence.

The Board and the Committee also considered that Robert J. O’Toole, who retired as a director of our company at the April, 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, is a director of Factory Mutual Insurance Company, to which we pay certain insurance premiums. The Committee and Board determined that this relationship was not material for governance purposes and did not affect the independence of Mr. O’Toole.

Further, the Board and the Committee considered that Ronald D. Brown is a director of Zep Inc., from which ourone manufacturing facilities purchasefacility purchased less than $4,000 of certain cleaning supplies in arm’s lengtharm’s-length transactions, and a managing director of Taft Business Consulting, LLC, which is affiliated with the law firm of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, which defended one lawsuit on our behalf until its dismissalbehalf. Legal fees paid in 2012.2013 in connection with this matter were less than $120,000. Mr. Brown was not involved in the retention of this law firm, nor in the management of the lawsuit. The Committee and Board determined that these relationships were immaterial for governance purposes and did not affect the independence of Mr. Brown.

The Board has determined that Messrs. Brown, Current, Greubel, O’Toole, Sandoval, Bruce M. Smith, Mark D. Smith and Wulf and Ms. Wolf meet the NYSE independence requirements. Messrs. Jones andMr. Rajendra areis considered a management directorsdirector by virtue of theirhis current positionsposition as executive officersofficer of our company. Mr. Jones is considered a management director by virtue of his current position as an executive officer and, following his retirement in April 2014, will be considered a non-management director.

The Board recognizes that the NYSE rules require financial literacy of Audit Committee members only. Notwithstanding that, as a best practice, the Board has reviewed the qualifications and experience of its members and determined that each director is financially literate within the meaning of the NYSE rules.

Board Information and Stockholder Communications. We are committed to making our corporate governance information accessible to stockholders and other interested parties. Accordingly, on our website,www.aosmith.com, under the “Investor Relations” heading, and then “Corporate Governance” subheading, we have published the A. O. Smith Corporation Guiding Principles, Financial Code of Ethics, Corporate Governance Guidelines, Criteria for Selecting Board of Director Candidates, a list of the Board of Directors and Committee Assignments, Stockholder Contacts to Communicate with Directors, and the Charters for the Audit, Investment Policy, Nominating and Governance, and Personnel and Compensation Committees. Further, SEC filings, including our Form 10-K, Form 10-Q, Form 8-K, Proxy Statement and Section 16 filings, are available for review on this website under the heading “Investor Relations,” and then “SEC Filings” subheading. Stockholders may also request that these documents be mailed by sending their request to the address provided below.

We encourage communication with our directors. Any interested party may communicate with a particular director, all directors, non-management or independent directors as a group or the lead director by mail or courier addressed to him/her or the entire Board in care of the Corporate Secretary at the following address:

c/o James F. Stern, Corporate Secretary

A. O. Smith Corporation

11270 West Park Place

P.O. Box 245008

Milwaukee, WI 53224-9508

The Corporate Secretary will forward this communication unopened to the addressed director.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation. The members of the Personnel and Compensation Committee are Ronald D. Brown, William P. Greubel, Mathias F. Sandoval and Bruce M. Smith. No member of this Committee serves as a member of a board of directors or compensation committee of any entity that has one or more executive officers serving as a member of our Board or Personnel and Compensation Committee.

Procedure for Review of Related Party Transactions. Potential conflicts of interest must be approved in advance, including related party transactions reportable under SEC rules, or related to the Smith family, in accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines. We have a detailed code of conduct, the A. O. Smith Corporation Guiding Principles, which applies to all employees, officers and directors, and specifically addresses conflicts of interest. There has been no waiver of the code of conduct, requested or granted, for any directors or officers. Further, the Corporate Governance Guidelines provide the procedure for review of related party transactions reportable under SEC rules, with approval by the Nominating and Governance Committee required if any such transaction involves a director, executive officer, or his/her immediate family members. Other than the matters identified in “Director Independence and Financial Literacy,” each of which was reviewed by the Nominating and Governance Committee and the Board and determined to not be material, there have been no related party transactions.

Potential Director Candidates. The Nominating and Governance Committee will consider any candidate recommended by stockholders, directors, officers, third-party search firms and other sources for nomination as a director. The Committee considers the needs of the Board and evaluates each director candidate in light of, among other things, the candidate’s qualifications. All candidates’ minimum qualifications are identified in the Corporate Governance Guidelines and the Criteria for Selecting Board of Director Candidates, both of which can be found on our website by clicking on “Investor Relations,” then “Corporate Governance” and then on the specific document. To summarize, all candidates should be independent and possess substantial and significant experience which would be of value to usour company in the performance of the duties of a director. Recommended candidates must be of the highest character and integrity, free of any conflicts of interest, have an inquiring mind and vision, and possess the ability to work collaboratively with others. Each candidate must have the time available to devote to Board activities and be of an age that, if elected, the candidate could serve on the Board for at least five years before reaching the mandatory retirement age, which is 72, absent a waiver approved by the Board. Finally, we believe it appropriate for certain key members of our management to participate as members of the Board, while recognizing that a majority of independent directors must be maintained at all times. All candidates will be reviewed in the same manner, regardless of the source of the recommendation. Although not part of any formal policy, our goal is a balanced and diverse Board, with members whose skills, background and experience are complimentary and, together, cover the spectrum of areas that impact our business.

A stockholder recommendation of a director candidate must be received no later than the date for submission of stockholder proposals. Please see the section of this proxy entitled, “Date for Stockholder Proposals.” The recommendation letter should be sent by mail to the Chairperson, Nominating and Governance Committee, c/o James F. Stern, Corporate Secretary, A. O. Smith Corporation, 11270 West Park Place, P.O. Box 245008, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53224-9508.

The recommendation letter must, at a minimum, provide the stockholder’s name; address;name, address, the number and class of shares owned; the candidate’s biographical information, including name, residential and business address, telephone number, age, education, accomplishments, employment history (including positions held and current position), and current and former directorships; and the stockholder’s opinion as to whether the stockholder

recommended candidate meets the definitions of “independent” and “financially literate” under the NYSE rules. In addition, the recommendation letter must provide the information that would be required to be disclosed in the solicitation of proxies for election of directors under federal securities laws. The stockholder must include the candidate’s statement that he/she meets these requirements and those identified on our website; is willing to promptly complete the questionnaire required of all officers, directors and candidates for nomination to the Board; will provide such other information as the Committee may reasonably request; and consents to serve on the Board if elected.

Board Committees

The Board of Directors has delegated some of its authority to Committees of the Board. There are four standing Committees: the Audit Committee, the Personnel and Compensation Committee, the Investment Policy Committee, and the Nominating and Governance Committee.

Audit Committee. The Audit Committee consists of four members who meet the independence and financial literacy requirements of the NYSE and the SEC. The Audit Committee’s duties include appointing the firm that will act as our independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee’s duties and responsibilities are set forth in its Charter, which has been approved by the Board of Directors and is available on our website. The Board of Directors has determined that Ms. Wolf and Mr. Wulf qualify as “audit committee financial experts” as defined by the SEC. The Audit Committee met 1211 times during 2012,2013, with seven of those meetings being telephonic. The Report of the Audit Committee is included as part of this Proxy Statement.

Personnel and Compensation Committee. The Personnel and Compensation Committee is responsible for establishing and administering our compensation and benefit plans for officers, executives and management employees, including the determination of eligibility for participation in such plans. It determines the compensation to be paid to officers and certain other selected executives, and evaluates the performance of the Chairmanchairman and Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer in light of established goals and objectives. Effective January 1, 2013, the positions of Chairmanchairman and Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer were separated. Theseparated and the Committee will evaluateevaluated the performance of both the Executive Chairmanexecutive chairman and the Chief Executive Officer.chief executive officer. As it deems appropriate, the Committee may retain independent consultants to provide recommendations as to executive compensation. The Committee reviews any conflicts and makes a determination as to the independence of such consultants prior to their retention. The Committee also directs the Senior Vice President—Human Resourcessenior vice president—human resources and Public Affairspublic affairs to prepare computations for its consideration, and considers recommendations of the Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer as to compensation of executives other than the Chief Executive Officer.chief executive officer. The Personnel and Compensation Committee’s duties and responsibilities are set forth in its Charter, which has been approved by the Board and is available on our website. The Committee consists of four directors, all of whom are independent under NYSE rules.rules and have been determined to be independent of any conflict with respect to the Committee’s compensation consultant. The Committee held four meetings during 2012.2013 with one of those meetings being telephonic. The Personnel and Compensation Committee Report is included as part of this Proxy Statement.

Investment Policy Committee. The Investment Policy Committee is responsible for establishing investment policy and certain other matters for all of our qualified retirement plans. The responsibilities and duties of the Investment Policy Committee are set forth in its Charter, which has been approved by the Board and is available on our website. The Committee consists of three members. The Investment Policy Committee held four meetings during 2012.2013.

Nominating and Governance Committee. The Nominating and Governance Committee oversees our governance processes and procedures, assists the Board in identifying qualified candidates for election as Board

members, and establishes and periodically reviews criteria for selection of directors. This Committee reviews our company’s and the Board Committees’ structurestructures to ensure appropriate oversight of risk. Further, the Committee provides direction to the Board as to the independence, financial literacy and financial expertise of directors, and the composition of the Board and its Committees. As part of its responsibilities, the Committee is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the Board as to director compensation. The responsibilities and duties of the Nominating and Governance Committee are set forth in its Charter, which has been approved by the Board and is available on our website. The Committee consists of four members, all of whom are independent under the NYSE rules. The Nominating and Governance Committee met fivefour times during 2012.2013 with one of those meetings being telephonic. The Report of the Nominating and Governance Committee is included as part of this Proxy Statement.

The table below shows Committee membership and the number of meetings of the full Board and each Committee in 2012.2013.

Our Leadership Structure

Since 2005,A priority for our companyBoard and its Committees has been led by Paul W. Jones, who has served as our Chairmanthe thoughtful and Chief Executive Officer. Our company historically has employed this leadership structure, with our Chief Executive Officer also serving as Chairmanorderly transition of the Board. We believechairman and chief executive officer position. As part of this structure has served us well for many years, providing a single strong leader for our company.

Effective January 1,on-going process, in 2013, we split the positions of Chairmanchairman and Chief Executive Officer. At that time, we promotedchief executive officer. This was implemented when, as part of the planned succession of Paul W. Jones, Ajita G. Rajendra to Chief Executive Officerbecame chief executive officer and Paul W.Mr. Jones retained the role of Executive Chairman. We implemented this leadership structure as part of our planned succession of Mr. Jones.executive chairman. We believe this structure ensuresensured an orderly transition of our company leadership, which benefits our stockholders, customers, employees, business partners and other key stakeholders.

As part of our ongoing leadership transition, Mr. Jones has announced that he will retire as executive chairman following our Annual Stockholders’ Meeting in April 2014. He will continue to serve as a Board member. Our Board has elected Mr. Rajendra to assume the role of chairman and to continue as president and chief executive officer at that time. Our company has historically employed this leadership structure, with our chief executive officer also serving as chairman of the Board. We believe this structure has served us well for many years, and will provide a single strong leader for our company.

While we recognize that the Executive Chairmanchairman position iswill be held by an executive officer, we believe that the members of our Board and the four standing Board Committees provide appropriate oversight. In this regard, the Audit Committee oversees the accounting and financial reporting processes, as well as risk, legal and compliance matters. The Personnel and Compensation Committee oversees the annual performance of our Chairmanchairman and Chief Executive Officer,chief

executive officer, as well as our executive compensation program. Further, effective January 1, 2013, the Personnel and Compensation Committee will oversee the performance of both the Executive Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer. The Nominating and Governance Committee monitors matters such as the composition of the Board and its committees, boardCommittees, Board performance and “best practices” in corporate governance. The Investment Policy Committee oversees our investments with respect to benefit plans. Each Committee is led by a chairperson other than the Chairman and Chief Executive Officerexecutive chairman or chief executive officer and, as discussed in more detail in this proxy, the entire Board of Directors is actively involved in overseeing our risk management. All together, we believe this framework strikes a sound balance with appropriate oversight.

We also have a lead director, who is an independent director and presides at meetings of all non-management directors in executive session. These meetings generally are held in conjunction with every regular Board meeting. In 2012,2013, each in-person Board meeting included a non-management directors’ session. This allows directors to speak candidly on any matter of interest, without the Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer or other managers present. In accordance with our

Corporate Governance Guidelines, the role of lead director rotates on an annual basis, as opposed to a meeting-by-meeting rotation like some companies, to provide continuity in director oversight. We believe this structure provides consistent and effective oversight of our management and our company.

Our directors bring a broad range of leadership experience to the boardroom and regularly contribute to the thoughtful discussion involved in overseeing the affairs of our company. We believe all Board members are well engaged in their responsibilities, and all Board members express their views and are open to the opinions expressed by other directors. We do not believe that appointing an independent board chairman, or a permanent lead director, would improve the performance of the Board.

Consideration of Risk

Our Board is actively involved in overseeing our risk management. Operational and strategic presentations by management to the Board include consideration of the challenges and risks to our business, and the Board and management actively engage in discussion on these topics. Annually, the Board also reviews and discusses a report from management on risk issues, and also receives more detailed presentations on specific risk topics relevant to our company at three to four Board meetings each year. This report is compiled by senior management and approved by the Chief Executive Officer.chief executive officer.

In addition, each of our Board Committees considers risk within its area of responsibility. For instance, our Audit Committee asks management to address a specific critical accounting issue at most of its meetings, and considers the overall impact that the issue has on our financial position and risk profile. In addition, they discuss legal and compliance matters, and assess the adequacy of our risk-related internal controls. Further, prior to the presentation of the risk report to the Board, the Audit Committee reviews the changes from the previous year. Likewise, the Personnel and Compensation Committee considers risk and structures our executive compensation programs with an eye to providing incentives to appropriately reward executives for growth without undue risk taking. Each year, the Personnel and Compensation Committee also performs a risk assessment with respect to our executive compensation program. The Investment Policy Committee evaluates the risk and return of our investments and has retained a financial advisor to assist on such matters. The Nominating and Governance Committee annually reviews governance practices with respect to risk and oversight. Additionally, on an annual basis, the Nominating and Governance Committee reviews our company’s and Board Committees’ structurestructures to ensure appropriate oversight of risk.

Further, our approach to compensation practices and policies applicable to employees throughout our organization is consistent with that followed for executives. In this regard, the Personnel and Compensation Committee analyzed our compensation and, among other things, concluded that no individual business segment carries a significant portion of our risk profile; has significantly different compensation structure from the others; pays compensation expenses as a significant percentage of its revenue, or varies significantly from the overall risk and reward structure of our company. Accordingly, we believe that risks arising from our operating environment and our incentive programs are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our company.

We benchmark our compensation and benefits packages at all levels of the organization no less than every other year. Base pay, bonus targets and long-term incentives are targeted to market median for each position. Most

exempt salaried positions are eligible for participation in bonus programs. For employees associated with our World Headquarters and Corporate Technology Center,in a corporate function, annual incentive programs are based upon attainment of the same Return on Equity targets as our executives. Annual incentive programs at our business segments are based upon attainment of financial and strategic objectives established and approved annually. A limited number of key managers are eligible to participate in a long-term incentive program that awards stock options and/or restricted stock units in varying amounts based upon position and market comparisons. However, all awards normally are subject to at least three-year vesting periods. We feel this combination of base salary, bonus plans tied to critical financial measurements and long-term incentives with three-year vesting periods is balanced and serves to motivate our employees to accomplish our company objectives and retain key employees while avoiding unreasonable risk taking.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board of Directors is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the Board as to director compensation, which ishas historically been set annually in July. Non-employee directors are compensated in the form of cash and shares of Common Stock.

In 2012,2013, the Committee reviewed its overall director compensation program in light of the responsibilities and time commitments expected of directors. As part of this process, the Committee considered a Towers Watson assessment of director compensation trends and other information concerning director compensation. After considering this information, and the responsibilities of Board and Committee members, the Committee recommended and the Board approvedelected to make no changes in July 2012 an increase in the cash annual retainer for Board members from

$42,500 to $47,500 and an increase in the stock retainer from $90,000 to $94,000, to reflect the time and responsibility required of directors fulfilling their responsibilities. The increase in cash retainer was effective April 2012; the increase in stock retainer was prorated as of July 2012. In addition, meeting fees, except for the Investment Policy Committee, increased from $1,500 to $2,500 per meeting and telephonic meeting fees increased from $500 to $1,000. Investment Policy Committee meeting fees decreased from $3,000 to $2,500 per meeting to be consistent with other committees and to reflect the modified structure for such meetings. Finally, the orientation fee for new directors increased from $1,500 to $2,500.2013.

After such changes, directorsDirectors receive a cash annual retainer, paid quarterly, in the amount of $47,500, and an award of shares of Common Stock with a market value of $94,000 on the date of the award. The lead director receives an annual retainer of $20,000. Directors receive $2,500 for attendance at each Board meeting and the annual stockholders’

meeting, plus expenses, and $1,000 for each telephonic Board and Committee meeting. Each Personnel and Compensation Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee and Investment Policy Committee member receives an annual retainer of $3,000, with the chairperson of each receiving $10,000; Committee members also receive $2,500 per meeting, plus expenses. Each Audit Committee member receives an annual retainer of $5,000, with the chairperson receiving an annual retainer of $15,000; Committee members also receive $2,500 per meeting, plus expenses. Directors who are our employees are not compensated for service as directors or Committee members or for attendance at Board or Committee meetings.

The Board requires that every new director participate in a detailed orientation, including visits to our key operations. This encompasses a review of business and financial operations, meetings with business executives and others, and an overview of our corporate governance policies and procedures. New directors are paid $2,500 to compensate them for their time devoted to orientation matters.

The stock ownership requirement for directors is five times the cash component of the annual retainer fee. Each director is required to acquire beneficial ownership of A. O. Smith Corporation Common Stock having an aggregate value equal to not less than five times the cash component of the annual retainer fee paid to the director within five years of (a) July 12, 2010 (policy effective date), or (b) his or her election as a new director, whichever is longer. All directors have met this requirement.

Certain directors have elected to defer the payment of their fees and receipt of Common Stock shares under the A. O. Smith Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Deferred Compensation Plan”). The Deferred Compensation Plan allows directors to defer all or a portion (not less than 50%25%) of their fees until a later date, but not later than the year in which age 71 is attained.the director ceases service as a director. Payments can be made in a lump sum or in not more than ten annual installments. Under this Plan Ms. Wolf, Mr.Messrs. Current and Mr. Sandoval each deferred payment of certain director fees.fees during 2013. This is handled as a bookkeeping entry, with gains and losses credited to the director’s account each month based on the director’s crediting election. The crediting election is used to designate the investment fund(s) as the basis for calculating the rate of return equivalent for the director’s account. The current funds available for a crediting election are: American Century VP Mid Cap Value Fund, Templeton Foreign Securities Fund, Vanguard VIF Balanced Fund, Janus Aspen Enterprise Fund, MFS VIT Growth Fund, Vanguard VIF Equity Index Fund, Delaware VIP Small Cap Value Fund, Edge Asset Management Equity Income Fund, Principal Global Investors Money Market Fund, PIMCO VIT Total Return Fund, Principal LifeTime 2010 Fund, Principal LifeTime 2020 Fund, Principal LifeTime 2030 Fund, Principal LifeTime 2040 Fund, Principal LifeTime 2050 Fund, Principal LifeTime 2060 Fund, Principal LifeTime Strategic Income Fund, and A. O. Smith Stable Value Fund. Ronald D. Brown, Gloster B. Current, Jr., William P. Greubel, Mathias F. Sandoval, Bruce M. Smith, and Idelle K. Wolf have deferred receipt of their stock awards, which consequently are treated as restricted stock units. Dividends on stock which has been deferred as restricted stock units are also received in the form of restricted stock units based on the average of the high and low price of our Common Stock on the date of the dividend.

STOCK OWNERSHIP

Security Ownership of Directors and Management

The following table shows, as of December 31, 2012,2013, the Class A Common Stock and Common Stock of our company and Common Stock options exercisable on or before February 28, 2013,2014, beneficially owned by each director, each nominee for director, each named executive officer in the “Summary Compensation Table” and by all directors and executive officers as a group.

Compliance with Section 16(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires our directors and executive officers, and persons who own more than ten percent of a registered class of our company’s equity securities, to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the SEC and the NYSE. Executive officers, directors and greater than ten percent stockholders are required by SEC regulations to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) Forms 3, 4 and 5 which they file.

Based solely on our review of the copies of such forms we received and written representations from certain reporting persons during fiscal year 2012,2013, we believe that all filing requirements applicable to our executive officers, directors and greater than ten percent beneficial owners were met.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Compensation Philosophy

We believe that effective executive compensation programs are critical to our long-term success. We have developed compensation programs with the following objectives:

Our long-term incentive opportunities link a significant portion of executive compensation to our performance through restricted stock unit and stock option awards. Executive officers also are expected to comply with established stock ownership guidelines which require acquisition and retention of specific levels of our Common Stock. Our view is that this stock ownership encourages executive performance but discourages executives from taking undue risk.

We believe executive total compensation opportunity should increase commensurate with responsibility and capacity to influence our results. Additionally, as responsibility and accountability increase, so should the portion of compensation which is at risk. Therefore, not only do base salaries increase with position and responsibility, but short-term and long-term incentive opportunities as a percentage of total compensation increase as well.

Our executive compensation package is designed to strike a balance between short-term cash compensation in the form of fixed salaries and variable annual incentive plans and long-term compensation in the form of cash-based performance units and equity awards with three-year vesting periods. For the Chief Executive Officer,chief executive officer, approximately 20% of 20122013 total target compensation was comprised of base salary, with the remaining 80% being variable compensation dependent on our company performance. The variable compensation was divided so that approximately 20% of total target compensation was attributable to annual incentive bonus and approximately 60% was long-term incentive compensation. The Committee approved a long-term incentive plan for 20122013, which targeted 66% of the Chief Executive Officer’schief executive officer’s long-term incentives, or approximately 40% of total compensation, as equity-based awards.

For Components of the Chief Operating Officer, approximately 25%executive chairman’s 2013 compensation were similar to that of 2012 total target compensation was comprised of base salary, with the remaining 75% being variable compensation tied to company performance. The variable components were divided so that approximately 20%chief executive officer, except 100% of his total target compensation was attributable to annual incentive bonus and approximately 55% was long term incentive compensation. Under the long term incentive plan approved by the Committee, approximately 66% of the long termlong-term incentives, or approximately 36%55% of his total compensation, were equity based.targeted as equity-based awards.

For the other named executive officers, approximately 30-40% of total target compensation was comprised of base salary, with the remaining 60-70% being based on our company performance. ApproximatelyThe variable compensation is structured so that approximately 20-25% of total target compensation represents annual incentive bonus with roughly 40-45% attributable to long-term incentive compensation. The Committee targeted 66% of the long-term incentives, or approximately 25-30% of total target compensation, as equity-based awards for those other named executive officers.

We believe this combination results in a competitive compensation package that provides an incentive for our executives to lead with a focus on short-term results, while positioning us for long-term sustained performance.

With approximately 25-40%25-55% of their total compensation tied to equity awards, we believe the decisions of named executive officers are aligned with the best interests of our stockholders. We believe this combination of base pay, short- and long-term incentives supports our objectives of pay-for-performance, while mitigating the potential for undue risk taking because it ties a significant portion of the executive officer’s compensation to sustained, long-term performance.

We believe our compensation philosophy is appropriate and aligned with stockholders, as demonstrated by our stock performance. The following represents our company’s total stockholder return from 20082009 to 2012.2013. Despite a sluggishchallenging economic climate, we reported solid diluted earnings per share from continuing operations of $3.49$1.83 for 2012.2013. We maintained our focus on growing stockholder value and, as shown in the table below, our total stockholder return for 20082009 to 20122013 significantly exceeded both the S&P Midcap 400, S&P Small Cap 600 and that of the Russell 1000.

Comparison of Five-Year Cumulative Total Return

From December 31, 20072008 to December 31, 20122013

Assumes $100 Invested with Reinvestment of Dividends

Outside Consultants

Just as we compete for market share in highly competitive global markets, we compete for talent in equally competitive labor environments. In order to attract and retain critical leadership in these competitive environments, we strive to provide a comprehensive and competitive total compensation package. We utilize the resources of an independent compensation consultant to aid in establishing our programs and to monitor how they compare with the marketplace. Specifically, the Personnel and Compensation Committee (“PCC”) has retained Towers Watson, a leading global executive compensation consulting group, to advise the PCC on market trends relative to executive compensation, provide market data as requested and share input and views on issues being discussed by the PCC.

The PCC has sole authority to approve the independent compensation consultants’ fees and terms of engagement on executive compensation matters. The PCC annually reviews its relationship with Towers Watson to ensure its independence on executive compensation consulting independence.matters. The PCC reviewed the independence of Towers Watson

and the individual representatives of Towers Watson who served as the PCC’s advisors, considering the following specific factors: (i) other services provided to us by Towers Watson; (ii) fees paid by us to Towers Watson as a percentage of Towers Watson’s total revenue; (iii) policies and procedures maintained by Towers

Watson that are designed to prevent a conflict of interest; (iv) any business or personal relationships between the individual representatives of Towers Watson who advised the PCC and any member of the PCC; (v) any companyshares of our company’s common sharesstock owned by the individual representatives; and (vi) any business or personal relationships between our executive officers and Towers Watson or the individual representatives.

We paid Towers Watson $77,202$51,420 of fees in 20122013 for consulting services provided to the PCC regarding executive compensation matters. Management subscribes to various Towers Watson compensation databases and CompSource database analytical tools to benchmark non-executive positions. Additionally, management utilizes Towers Watson in various consulting capacities related to employee benefits programs.programs and non-executive salaried employee compensation, as well as director compensation benchmarking. The following table sets forth the fees we paid to Towers Watson in 20122013 for services other than those provided to the PCC.

We have been advisedunderstand that the Towers Watson advisorspersonnel who provide advice to the PCCus on executive and director compensation matters are not involved in these other servicesseparate from and do not provide other compensation services to our company, nor do they serve as our account managers formanager. Other Towers Watson in its capacity as advisors to the company overall.personnel separately provide such other services. The PCC does not approve the services provided by Towers Watson outside the executive compensation advisory role to the PCC but is aware these services are provided.

The PCC concluded, based on the evaluation described above, that these non-executive compensation services performed by Towers Watson did not raise a conflict of interest or impair Towers Watson’s ability to provide independent advice to the PCC regarding executive compensation matters. The PCC’s conclusion was based on a representation letter provided by Towers Watson, the limited scope of the other services provided to us by Towers Watson, the small percentage of Towers Watson’s revenues represented by the fees paid by us, the separation within Towers Watson between its compensation consulting business and its other businesses, the absence of any conflicting relationships between the individual representatives of Towers Watson who provided advice to the PCC or Towers Watson, on the one hand, and members of the PCC or our executive officers, on the other, and review of director and executive officer responses to our annual DirectorDirectors’ and OfficerOfficers’ Questionnaire.

Benchmarking

We endeavor to benchmark our executive compensation against similarly situated executives in comparably sized organizations. We believe we compete for executive resources with other non-financial institutions across multiple industrial segments. With that in mind, our consultants utilize broad-based, general industry salary surveys and regress their data to organizations with $2.5 billion in revenues. We believe market median is an appropriate target for our total compensation program. We attempt to design both short- and long-term incentives to produce rewards in excess of median market levels when company performance is better than target. The PCC authorized Towers Watson to perform a detailed analysis of our executive compensation levels in 2012,2013, as we did inhave each year since 2010 and 2011 because of market volatility.

As described below, the PCC asked Towers Watson to provide input on marketplace trends in executive compensation, and overall compensation and components of compensation for 1312 executive positions, includingpositions. With the exception of the executive chairman position, which was excluded from the study because of its unique role in our succession planning process, each of the named executive officers was compared at the 50^th percentile of market survey data. In addition to providing information regarding executive pay, Towers Watson provides information relating to director compensation and market trends.

We utilize Towers Watson because we believe its survey resources ensure consistent and statistically valid data that is representative of the market in which we compete for executive talent. Its database includes a broad array of approximately 8001,000 companies. After eliminating financial services, health care and energy services, it used approximately 400450 companies in the database when benchmarking our positions. We did not rely on a specific sub-group of peer companies within that database. In working with Towers Watson, we played no role in selecting the individual companies for which the data was obtained.

To benchmark our company’s executive positions for 2012For 2013 compensation, Towers Watson performed a regression analysis to reflect base pay levels of an organization with $2.5 billion in revenue. Itsrevenue and reported its findings were reported to the PCC in October 2011.2012. Target bonus and long-term incentives, which are gathered as a percentage of competitive base salary, were determined from all companies in Towers Watson’s general industry database with revenues between $1 billion and $3 billion. Its comparison focused on overall compensation, as well as base salary, annual incentive bonus, equity awards and each of the other compensation elements discussed below. We believe its methodology provides appropriate comparisons by utilizing industrial companies of comparable size and referencing databases with comparable executive officer positions.

For 2012,2013, the PCC targeted our overall compensation and benefits programs and each element of compensation at the median level of the surveyed companies. Since a number of variables can influence the relationship of an individual executive’s pay components to the survey median data, the PCC considers a range of 90% to 110% of median to be appropriate when reviewing total compensation. Although the PCC attempts to have each component of compensation in this target range, the PCC puts greater emphasis on achieving the target at the total compensation level. Variables considered include, but are not limited to, education, position tenure, previous experience, level of performance, additional responsibilities, and, as appropriate, recruitment considerations.

For 2013,2014, we continue to compare ourselves to the market median of other companies with revenues of $2.5 billion. Given our growth plans, our desire to maintain stability in our executive compensation programs and the modest differences in pay for companies with sales in the $2.0 billion to $2.5 billion range, the PCC chose to maintain the current comparisons when setting 2013 compensation.

During 2012, the PCC also retained Towers Watson to perform a study of compensation at similar companies transitioning their chief executive officer to executive chairman status and, in turn, promoting another officer to chief executive officer. The PCC considered this study when setting the 2013 compensation of Messrs. Jones and Rajendra in the positions of executive chairman and chief executive officer, respectively.

In addition, the PCC asked Towers Watson to study executive share ownership guidelines, and the methodology for establishing and monitoring ownership guidelines at companies generally. The PCC considered the study results in deciding to continue our current share ownership guidelines, as adjusted to reflect Mr. Rajendra’s promotion to the position of chief executive officer in 2013.

Consideration of Stockholder Vote on Executive Compensation

At our 20122013 annual meeting, our stockholders approved the compensation of our named executive officers by approximately 86%over 99% of the votes cast. The PCC took this into account and made few changes to our executive compensation program during 2012.2013. The PCC also considered this vote when setting 2013 executive2014 compensation levels for other executives and, as discussed below, made very few changes to the 2013 program, aside from compensation adjustments for Mr. Jones and Mr. Rajendra commensurate with their new positions as Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, respectively.2014 program.

Role of Executives in Compensation Decisions

The PCC annually reviews Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer performance and makes recommendations regarding Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer compensation for consideration by the full Board. The Chief Executive Officer is not present during these discussions and plays no role in determining his own compensation. Going forward,For 2013, the PCC will reviewreviewed and makemade recommendations to the Board on the compensation of the Executive Chairmanchief executive officer and Chief

Executive Officer;the executive chairman. Neither the chief executive officer nor the executive chairman is present during discussions regarding their compensation, and neither will participateplays any role in these discussions.determining his own compensation. As it deems appropriate, the PCC utilizes the Towers Watson compensation data and directs the Senior Vice President—Human Resourcessenior vice president—human resources and Public Affairspublic affairs to prepare computations for its consideration. With respect to other executives, the Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer annually reviews performance and makes compensation recommendations to the PCC. The Chief Executive Officer will reviewchief executive officer reviews compensation data provided by Towers Watson, consultconsults with the Senior Vice President—Human Resourcessenior vice president—human resources and Public Affairs,public affairs, and considerconsiders the individual factors listed above before making his recommendations. The PCC can exercise its discretion to modify any recommended compensation to such executives.

Compensation Elements

The PCC takes a balanced approach to executive compensation. Our executive compensation package is comprised of several key components which are designed to work together to provide executives with a total compensation package that is competitive with industry norms. For 2012,2013, total compensation included:

Each of these components of the executive compensation package is discussed below.

Base Salary

Base salary provides the executive with a consistent, market competitive stream of income on a semi-monthly basis. Absent unusual circumstances, we review base salary levels annually, with adjustments effective January 1. The Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer considers each senior executive individually for base salary actions and recommends appropriate adjustments. The PCC annually evaluates the appropriate base salary for the Chief Executive Officer,chief executive officer, and reviews and approves his recommendations for the other named executive officers. When considering base salary increases, consideration is given to industry experience, individual performance, level of contribution, pay levels relative to market pay practices, as well as our overall financial condition. While the Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer recommends compensation adjustments for the other named executive officers, his recommendations must be approved and authorized by the PCC. The Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer and the PCC rely upon competitive survey data from Towers Watson and their own diverse experiences with executive compensation when making compensation decisions.

In reviewing and approving individual base salary adjustments for the named executive officers for 2012,2013, the PCC relied upon salary data for comparable positions from the 20112012 Towers Watson Executive Compensation Database, which was aged 2.5%3% to reflect anticipated market movement from the 20112012 survey through year end 2012. Based upon its understanding2013. Consistent with his appointment to the position of the market and other considerations,chief executive officer in 2013, the PCC approved an increase of $30,000$273,200 or approximately 3%47.4% in base salary for Mr. Jones in 2012, and effectiveRajendra. Concurrently, Mr. Jones’ base salary was reduced $180,000 or approximately 17.5% to reflect his new role as ofexecutive chairman. Effective January 1, 2012,2013, the PCC authorized increases of 3.0% for Messrs. Rajendra, Stern and Petrarca, and 10%3.2% for Mr. Kita.

In reviewing 20132014 base salaries at its December 20122013 meeting, the PCC approved increases of approximately 3.1%3% for the named executive officers other than Messrs. Jones andMr. Rajendra, whose roles were slated to change effective January 1, 2013. Infor whom the case of Mr. Jones, whose duties are shifting to those of Executive Chairman,PCC approved a 9.6% increase, which brings his base salary was reduced from $1,030,000equal to $850,000, or an approximately 15% decrease. The base pay of Mr. Rajendra, who is assuming the position of Chief Executive Officer, increased from $576,800 to $850,000, or an approximately 47% increase.market median. Based upon input from Towers Watson, we believe that the 2014 base salaries for our

named executive officers are in the aggregate approximately 106%104% of the projected market median, whichexcluding Mr. Jones, whose salary was not benchmarked. This is within our desired target range of 90% to 110%. Further, we anticipate market increase for base salaries to average 3% in 2013.2014, which we took into account in determining 2014 salaries.

Executive Incentive Compensation

We include both annual and long-term incentives in our executive compensation package. The goal of our incentive plans is to focus executives on both short-term financial and strategic objectives, while ensuring their commitment to our long-term growth and stability. Our incentive plans tie financial awards to our financial and strategic success and the interests of our stockholders, and provide pay in addition to annual base salary when warranted by corporate financial performance.

Annual Incentive Compensation and Discretionary Bonuses

Each year, the PCC reviews and approves our financial objectives for both the company and its business units. The executive annual incentive bonus is tied to achieving those objectives. The better we perform relative to these objectives, the higher the incentive bonus payment.

The annual target incentive bonus typically is calculated as a percent of annual base pay as of January 1 of the performance year. The target percent for incentive compensation, like base salary, is determined through periodic benchmarking and review of the median level survey data provided by Towers Watson. Annual incentive compensation represents an “at risk” component of the executive compensation package. Actual incentive bonus amounts are dependent upon performance against specific measurements and through 2012,2013, may vary from 0% to 200% of targeted amounts.

As a general principle, the portion of an executive’s compensation tied to incentive compensation increases with the executive’s level of responsibility. Thus, the Chief Executive Officer’schief executive officer’s annual incentive opportunity is greater than that of the other named executive officers. We targeted an annual incentive opportunity for the Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer at 100% of base pay in 20122013 based upon Towers Watson survey data for comparably situated executives. As a result of his promotion to Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Rajendra’s annual incentive target was increased to 75% for 2012. The relationship of our incentive targets to market median comparisons is illustrated in the following table. No other changes were made to executive annual incentive targets during 2012.

The 20122013 annual incentive plan for all corporate executives was based on achieving a target financial measure of 11.36%11.67% Return on Equity, which the PCC established at its February, 20122013 meeting based upon historical performance, its assessment of the 20122013 business plan, the competitive environmentsenvironment and overall performance objectives. Return on Equity is calculated by dividing net income by stockholder equity, adjusted to exclude certain extraordinary andor nonrecurring items, as provided for in the 20122013 annual incentive plan. We use Return on Equity as the basis for determining annual incentive compensation for corporate executives because we believe it represents a sound measure of our performance that is easily recognized and readily used by investors and that links executive performance to stockholder interests.

Despite difficultchallenging economic conditions, including a lacklusterslowly recovering new housing market in North America during 2012,2013, we reported solidrecord earnings and achieved 121.9%158.7% of the corporate Return on Equity incentive bonus target. Accordingly, the named executive officers were awarded incentive compensation bonuses set forth in the table below. In addition, the PCC may award discretionary bonuses it deems appropriate. During 2012,2013, the PCC approved no discretionary bonuses.

20122013 Annual Incentive Awards

For 2013, the target annual incentive for Mr. Rajendra will increase to 100% of base pay, to reflect his promotion to the position of Chief Executive Officer. No other changes are anticipated for annual incentive targets to the other named executives.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation

Long-term incentive compensation consists of stock options, restricted stock units and performance units, all of which are focused on ensuring sustained performance over a multi-year period. We believe strongly that equity-based long-term incentives effectively link the interests of senior management to the interests of our stockholders. The allocation of total value between each of the long-term incentive components may vary from year-to-year based on our focus, as determined by the PCC. The long-term incentive portion of an executive’s compensation is “at risk” and is dependent upon corporate performance and growth in stock value.

The stated purpose of the Combined Incentive Compensation Plan, which is the vehicle for awarding long-term incentives, is to provide compensation as an incentive to induce key employees to remain in our employ and to encourage them to secure or increase their stock ownership in our company or to otherwise align their interests with our stockholders. The Combined Incentive Compensation Plan motivates behavior through growth-related incentives to achieve long-range revenue and profitability goals.

The total target value of all long-term incentive components is compared to comparable positions in the marketplace. Again, the PCC utilizes Towers Watson to assist in benchmarking against the median level of surveyed companies to determine market competitive long-term incentive targets for executive positions.

Our 2012 long-term incentives (other than for Mr. Rajendra) were set at market median at the time of the February 2012 grant using data available to us in 2011, which was then aged to reflect an anticipated market increase. When 2012 awards were compared to market median in October 2012, the market median had increased more than anticipated at the time of the awards, resulting in some awards trailing the market median.

Based upon the analyses provided by Towers Watson in October 2012,2013, long-term incentive grants to our named executive officers were valued in the aggregate at 105% of market median. As noted in our Compensation Discussion and Analysis last year, Mr. Rajendra’s overall long-term incentive target was well below the market median, due to his September, 2011 promotion to the position of Chief Operating Officer. No long-term incentive target adjustment was made in 2011 and, as we noted, the PCC decided it would take this into account when setting his 2012 grant. Consequently, to account for his below market 2011 long-term incentive target, Mr. Rajendra’s 2012 long-term incentive target was set higher at 130% of market median. Excluding his award, the aggregate value of long-term incentive targets for the other four named executive officers in 2012 is approximately 99%93% of market median.

The following table shows long-term incentive grants to named executive officers in 2012:2013, and compares such grants to market median.

Emphasis on Performance-Based Awards

Our consistent approach since 2008 is to structure our awards so that restricted stock units represent 33% of our long-term incentive awards, stock options 33%, and performance units 34%. All of these long-term awards are performance based.performance-based.

Restricted stock units entitle the executive to receive a share of Common Stock for each unit when the restricted stock unit vests. Restricted stock units are time-based, but have a minimum performance threshold based on Average Annual Return on Equity that must be achieved in order to vest. The Average Return on Equity is

calculated by dividing net income by stockholder equity, adjusted to exclude certain extraordinary and non-recurring items, averaged over the three yearthree-year vesting period. We use Average Return on Equity because we believe it represents a sound measure of our performance that is easily recognized and readily used by investors and that links executive performance to stockholder interest over the three yearthree-year performance period of the award. The value to the executive of restricted stock units is dependent upon the value of our Common Stock at the time of vesting. Restricted stock units are used to provide a combination of retention value and incremental performance incentives. For 2012,2013, the minimum Average Annual Return on Equity for restrictive stock unit payouts was 5%.

Stock options granted through the Combined Incentive Compensation Plan are valued at fair market value on the day of the grant, which is calculated by averaging the high and the low trading prices of our Common Stock on the NYSE on the day of the grant. The value of options to an executive is entirely dependent upon the growth of our stock price over the option price. Under the terms of the Combined Incentive Compensation Plan, options may not be repriced once granted. Stock options are used to incent higher stock prices and incremental stockholder value creation, as no value is realized unless the stock price increases above the grant price.

The PCC elected to continue to use Return on Invested Capital as a percent of the Cost of Capital as the performance measure for performance units in 2012.2013. We believe Return on Invested Capital represents a sound measure of how effectively executives manage capital. The goal is to achieve Return on Invested Capital as a percent of the Cost of Capital at or above 100%. Performing at this level means we are maintaining or creating additional stockholder value. We calculate Return on Invested Capital by taking net operating profit after taxes and dividing it by total capital. As with annual incentive compensation objectives, the PCC sets targets at levels that are difficult to achieve, but with the expectation they are attainable.

Performance units are valued at the time of grant at $100. Their value to the executive is dependent upon Return on Invested Capital performance as a percent of the Cost of Capital over a three-year vesting period. For

2011, their value may be anywhere from 0% to 150% of target value based upon performance. In establishing the target, 2013, the PCC expressed its desire for our company to earn more than the Cost of Capital during the measurement period. Thus, to obtain 100% of the granted value, our average Return on Invested Capital during the three-year performance period (2011-2013) divided by the baseline Cost of Capital effective December 31, 2010, must equal 105%. That target is expressed as the following equation:

The minimum performance level below which no payment is earned was established at 85% of the average Return on Invested Capital as a percent of the Cost of Capital. At the 85% threshold performance level, executives would earn 85% of the award value. Target value is achieved at 105% of Return on Invested Capital as a percent of the Cost of Capital. The performance level at which the maximum payment will be earned was set at 150% of target. If Return on Invested Capital as a percent of Cost of Capital during the performance period exceeds target by 50%, executives will earn 150% of the award value. This formula raised the performance threshold necessary to achieve a maximum award payout for the second consecutive year. Previously, executives earned the maximum payout if the Return on Invested Capital as a percent of the Cost of Capital during the performance period exceeded target by 25%.

In a continuing effort to ensure the program pays out above target only for exceptional performance, the PCC asked management to develop a new approach to setting minimum, target and maximum payout levels for Performance Units. After considering a variety of alternatives at its December 2011 meeting, the PCC decided to modify the approach to establishingcontinued the performance/payout relationship previously implemented for the 2012–2014 Performance Units. Under the new approach, weWe must earn 100% Return on Invested Capital as a percent of the Cost of Capital during the measurement period in order for executives to achieve a minimum payout under the plan. At 100% performance, executives will earn 50% of their target value. Target value payouts will be earned at 135%156% performance over the course of the measurement period and a maximum payout of 200% of target will be earned should we return 269%312% Return on Invested Capital as a percent of the Cost of Capital between January 1, 2012,2013 and December 31, 2014. This new methodology significantly raises the bar for payouts at all levels under the plan.2015.

Through December 2012,2013, which includes one year of the three-year performance period, the performance units granted in February 20122013 had an estimated value of approximately 150% of their target value. Through December 2012,2013, which includes two years of the three-year performance period, the performance units granted in February 20112012 had an estimated value of approximately 150% of their target value.

At target, the combined value of the three components of executive long-term incentives (stock options, restricted stock units and performance awards) should represent market median long-term incentive awards consistent with the Towers Watson survey. Based upon the PCC’s October 2012November 2013 analysis, target long-term incentives for our named executive officers compared to market median asis reflected on the table on page 25.

Effective with his 2013 Grant,grant, the PCC determined that in his new role of Executive Chairman,executive chairman, Mr. Jones’ long-term incentive would consist of 50% restricted stock units and 50% stock options. He was not granted performance units in 2013.2013 or 2014.

The PCC made no 2013 changes with respect to long-term incentives for the other named executive officers.

Timing of Awards

Long-term incentive grants are awarded annually in February, shortly after earnings are released for the prior year. The PCC and Board reserve the right to grant equity to new hires at the time of their hire in order to align them as quickly as possible to stockholder interests and to make equity adjustments at its discretion if circumstances warrant.

Payout of 2010-20122011-2013 Performance Awards

Performance units awarded in February 20102011 for the period 2010-20122011-2013 were paid in February 2013.2014. These awards were based upon the Return on Invested Capital (“ROIC”) as a percent of the Cost of Capital for the three-year period (2010-2012)(2011-2013). The units originally were valued at $100 per share. Based upon our performance during the measurement period, our ROIC exceeded the Cost of Capital by over 55%, which resulted in the units being paid out at $150 per share.share, which is the maximum payout for these performance units.

Payout of Special Award

In February 2011, the PCC awarded Mr. Stern up to a maximum of 8,250 performance-based restricted stock units, which would vest on January 1, 2014, if we achieved our targeted ROIC during the period of 2011 through 2013. The PCC granted the award to Mr. Stern to offset certain benefits he did not receive at the time of his hire and as an incentive for him to remain with our company and assist in achieving its performance objectives. Based upon the company’s ROIC performance during the measurement period, Mr. Stern earned the maximum number of restricted stock units. When adjusted for the 2-for-1 share split effective May 15, 2013, Mr. Stern will receive 16,500 shares in 2014. Since these shares vest in 2014, this payout will be reflected in the Option Exercises and Stock Vested table in the 2015 proxy.

Share Ownership Guidelines

We have developed share ownership guidelines requiring minimum levels of Common Stock accumulation and ownership, depending on the executive’s position. Current ownership guidelines applicable to current named executive officers are as follows:

Mr. Rajendra’s share ownership guideline increased to five times his base salary range midpoint effective January 1, 2013, as reflected above, when he assumed the position of Chief Executive Officer.chief executive officer. Mr. Jones’ ownership guideline remained at five times his base salary when he assumed the role of executive chairman. All other named executive officers maintained their guideline of three times base salary.

These ownership guidelines are targeted to be competitive with comparable positions in the marketplace. They also are intended to align executive interests with those of our stockholders. The PCC periodically monitors ownership guidelines to ensure they are consistent with the market, and makes adjustments as appropriate. Executives are expected to achieve these ownership guidelines within a reasonable period of time after becoming an executive at our company. Once achieved, the level of ownership must be maintained. Including granted but unvested restricted stock units, all current named executive officers are in compliance.

Consideration of Risk in Executive Compensation Plans

We believe our total compensation package mitigates unreasonable risk-taking by our senior executives. In this regard, we strike a balance between short-term and long-term cash and equity awards. A significant portion of our executives’ pay is linked to the achievement of financial goals directly aligned to stockholder interests: Return on Equity and Return on Invested Capital as a percent of the Cost of Capital. The competitive annual incentive plan rewards executives for achieving short-term performance targets, which keeps them focused on day-to-day business fundamentals. On the other hand, our long-term cash and equity awards incent executives to take a long-term view of our company and to assume reasonable risks to develop new products, explore new markets and expand existing business.

Further, our executives are stockholders with established share ownership guidelines requiring them to acquire and hold A. O. Smith stock. Their stock grants vest over three-year periods so they are incented to build stockholder value over time. Their cash performance units also are subject to vesting over a three-year period and their payout is tied to Return on Invested Capital over the same period of time.

Our performance basedperformance-based pay components are tied to company-wide results. We have implemented caps on our annual cash incentive plan and our long-term performance units. Our equity programs limit and define the number of shares, but the value of the award is determined by the stock market at the time they vest or are exercised, which we believe provides a strong connection with stockholder interests.

In 2012,2013, the PCC reviewed the company’s annual and long-term incentive plans at the PCC’s July 20122013 meeting. As a result of its review, the PCC concluded:concluded that our program is unlikely to place the company at material risk. In this regard, several of our current practices effectively mitigate risk and promote performance.

As part of this process, the PCC reviewed the risk assessment process conducted by Towers Watson at the PCC’s direction and discussed with Towers Watson any changes over the last year that could impact risk. The PCC concluded that no plan changes were implemented in 2013 that would affect the existing risk profile of any of the plans.

In addition, we have implemented an executive compensation reimbursement policy, requiring the executives to reimburse incentive compensation erroneously awarded in certain circumstances in the event of a material restatement, commonly called a “clawback.” We believe this policy, discussed in greater depth in the Section of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis entitled, “Executive Compensation Reimbursement Policy,” mitigates the risk of a financial restatement by ensuring that our executive officers continuously monitor and maintain the accuracy of our reported financial results.

Executive Life Insurance

The A. O. Smith Executive Life Insurance Plan is a program intended to provide income security for a named beneficiary in the event of death. The plan generally provides a market-competitive life insurance benefit equal to three times the executive’s annual base salary during employment and one times the annual base salary after retirement. With respect to Mr. Jones, this is calculated at one times his pre-transition annual base salary.

Executive Pension

We maintain a qualified defined benefit plan, the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan, for all eligible employees. In addition, we provide a supplemental executive pension program intended to provide income continuation for an executive at the time of retirement.retirement based on earnings at the time of retirement and length of company service. The plans are consistent with our philosophy of providing competitive retirement benefits for all employees in order to attract and retain critical talent, as well as ensure a secure retirement for employees who contributed to our success over a sustained period of time. A detailed discussion of terms of the plans follows the “Pension Benefits” Table.

Effective January 1, 2010, we implemented a five-year sunset provision for our qualified defined benefit plan. As a result, participants will stop accruing benefits in the plan effective December 31, 2014. At its July 2010 meeting, the PCC decided to continue the existing supplemental executive retirement plan for all executives currently participating in the plan. Executives hired or promoted into a qualifying executive position after July 2010 do not participate in the existing supplemental executive retirement plan but will be eligible to participate in a defined contribution restoration plan that will provide a 3% contribution per year of pay (base plus bonus) based on pay above the Internal Revenue Service pay limit.

Defined Contribution Retirement Savings Plan

We have a 401(k) plan for all U.S. salaried employees, including the named executive officers. It provides a 100% match on the first 1% of employee savings and a 50% match on the next 5% of employee savings. We provide a company contribution under the A. O. Smith Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan to executives

who contributed the maximum eligible tax-deferred employee contributions allowed by law to the 401(k) Plan. The amount of the company contribution to the executive under the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan was the difference between the match the executive would have received without the restrictions placed on contributions to the 401(k) plan by the Internal Revenue Code and the actual match received under the 401(k) plan.

A discussion of the A. O. Smith Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, under which executives may elect to defer all or part of their salary, annual incentive bonus or restricted stock units, follows the “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation” Table.

Executive Perquisites

We provide a perquisite allowance to our senior executives, paid semi-monthly. The PCC feels these perquisite allowances reflect current market practices and are an important element of the total compensation package which serves to attract and retain critical executive talent. Perquisite allowances for the named executive officers are:

The perquisite allowance for Mr. Rajendra was increased from $40,000 to $60,000 to reflect his position as Chief Executive Officer,chief executive officer, effective January 1, 2013.

In addition to the perquisite allowance, executives may receive executive physicals, reimbursement for spousal travel to Board or executive meetings for business purposes, including, on an infrequent basis, spousal travel on the corporate aircraft for such meetings, occasional tickets to sporting events and other items of incidental value.

Executive Agreements

The named executive officers participate in the A. O. Smith Senior Leadership Severance Plan, which protects executives financially in the event of employment termination in circumstances identified in the plan, including a change in control of our company. These protections help to ensure that executives will remain focused on managing our company in the event of a pending change in control or other circumstances. Furthermore, this plan provides a more attractive compensation package when recruiting key talent. Lastly, instead of negotiating individual separation arrangements upon a termination, the PCC can ensure consistent and equitable treatment for all executives.

The plan provides each executive with a cash severance (represented as a multiple of their annual cash compensation), medical benefit continuation and outplacement services. Additionally, vesting of long-term

incentive awards is accelerated in certain cases. To be covered by the plan, an executive must sign a non-compete, non-solicitation,noncompete, nonsolicitation, assignment of inventions and confidentiality agreement. To receive these benefits, an executive must sign a release from future claims against our company. The plan also provides for enhanced cash severance benefits upon a change in control, as discussed below.

Additionally, as an inducement to hire, Mr. Rajendra requested and was provided with a pension supplement which is described in more detail in the compensation tables and narrative section of this disclosure. This pension supplement was intended to replace benefits he forfeited in order to join us.

Tax Considerations

The PCC considers its primary goal is to design compensation strategies that further the economic interests of our company and stockholders. The PCC intends to deliver executive compensation programs in a manner that is tax-

effectivetax-effective (for Section 162(m) and other purposes) for our company and employees to the extent practicable. In certain cases, the PCC may determine that the amount of tax deductions lost is insignificant when compared to the potential opportunity a compensation program provides for creating stockholder value. The PCC therefore retains the ability to pay appropriate compensation even if it may result in the non-deductibilitynondeductibility of certain compensation.

Executive Compensation Reimbursement Policy

We frequently review our executive compensation philosophy and objectives to help ensure that we comply with high standards of good governance while serving the interests of our stockholders. We adjust and revise our executive compensation programs when appropriate to achieve these goals. As an example, beginningBeginning in year 2011, the PCC implemented a requirement that executive officers who receive payments of performance-based awards (annual or long-term incentive awards, stock-based awards, and any other form of cash or equity compensation other than salary) must, upon request of the PCC, reimburse us for those payments where, (1) the payments were based on the achievement of certain financial results during a specified performance period; (2) the financial results were subsequently subject to a material restatement; and (3) the restatement resulted from material noncompliance with financial reporting requirements under applicable laws. In those circumstances, we may obtain reimbursement, or “clawback,” of any amount by which the payment of the award to the executive officer exceeds the lower payment that would otherwise have been made to the executive officer based on the restated financial results. We will not seek reimbursement of payments of awards where the payment was made more than three years before the occurrence of the restatement or where the restatement applies to a period where the executive officer was not an executive officer of our company.

The PCC believes that implementing this reimbursement requirement for all awards issued under our various incentive plans, including our Combined Incentive Compensation Plan, is important to help ensure that our executive officers continuously monitor and maintain the accuracy of our reported financial results. Further, the PCC believes that this reimbursement requirement aligns our executive officers’ compensation with our interests in ensuring full compliance with financial reporting requirements to which we are subject as a public company. We believe the reimbursement requirement will further align our executive compensation programs with our core compensation philosophy and objectives by tying payments on performance awards and annual incentive compensation to actual achieved financial results of our company. This will further serve our long-term objective of aligning compensation of our executive officers with the interests of our stockholders.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

The Summary Compensation Table reflects information concerning compensation awarded to, earned by or paid to our chief executive officer, chief financial officer and other named executive officers during fiscal years 2013, 2012, 2011, and 2010.2011.

COMPONENTS OF 20122013 ALL OTHER COMPENSATION

GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

The table below reflects the plan-based awards made under the Combined Incentive Compensation Plan to each of the named executive officers during 2012.2013. All amounts were adjusted to reflect the 2-for-1 stock split implemented on May 15, 2013.